[2] Where a revised tax invoice is issued and received, in the sense of cancelling the issuance and receipt of a processed tax invoice without being supplied with or being supplied with goods or services, using a negative label on the same value of supply, whether the following act of issuing and receiving the revised tax invoice constitutes a crime stipulated in Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (negative)

1. Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter the same) punish “the act of issuing or receiving a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied goods or services or having been supplied with them.” This is to punish the act of receiving or receiving a tax invoice without real transaction, thereby promoting the normalization of the order of receiving the tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7768, Apr. 30, 2014).

In full view of the language, structure, legislative intent, etc. of Article 10(3) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, where a revised tax invoice is issued and received without being supplied with or being supplied with goods or services and then the latter is issued and received with a negative indication in the same value of supply, and where the latter’s supply value is cancelled, the latter’s act of issuing and receiving the revised tax invoice does not constitute an offense provided for in Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but rather, an act of issuing and receiving the revised tax invoice with a negative indication on the same value of supply.

2. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the portion of the charge of this case’s issuance of a copy of the revised tax invoice consisting of “-300 million won” as the supply price does not meet the elements of Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on the ground that the issuance of a false tax invoice with the content of revoking the false tax invoice after obtaining a false tax invoice without real transactions does not constitute a false tax invoice with the content of revoking the false tax invoice.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 10(3) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, contrary to what is alleged in the

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim H-soo (Presiding Justice)