A. Error of mistake

Although the Defendant issued or received a tax invoice under the name of ○○ letter, it is merely merely borrowed the name with the consent of Nonindicted 4, the representative of ○○ letter, due to the lack of business registration, while making a real transaction. Since the Defendant fully paid taxes on the details of the actual transaction, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intent to commit the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (fine 12 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misconception of facts

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant engaged in the clothing processing business without registration, and traded with Nonindicted Co. 1, Nonindicted Co. 2, and Nonindicted Co. 3, etc., and the defendant, as to the above transaction, issued or received a tax invoice stating the “○○” as if the transaction had been conducted with the above transaction partners, and prepared a list of total tax invoices by customer. Therefore, the defendant can sufficiently be recognized that he prepared and delivered a false tax invoice, etc. containing the above contents, even though the “○○” did not have supplied or received the goods of this case. It does not interfere with the establishment of the crime solely on the ground that the defendant obtained the consent of the representative of the ○○ letter claimed by the defendant, or that the defendant paid taxes on the actual transaction.

B. Determination of unfair sentencing

After filing a revised tax return after the crime of this case, most of the taxes were paid by the Defendant, and the transaction amount corresponding to the amount stated in the tax invoice of this case is deemed to have actually existed, but this point seems to have been reduced by fine for the first summary order due to the consideration in the lower court. In addition, a tax offense is an offense interfering with the national fair tax affairs, which requires strict punishment, and the amount of supply of tax invoices issued or received by the Defendant exceeds KRW 500 million in total, 2 years and 6 months in imprisonment and 3 million in fines due to a violation of the Certified Tax Accountant Act of 1997, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years in October due to a violation of the Customs Act of 2006, as well as all the circumstances that conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, living environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)