Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) recognized as crimes

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

2.(a) B

3.2.(b) C

Attorney Lee Dong-soo

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years for Defendant A and B.

Defendant C is ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged against the Defendants, each violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by receiving false tax invoices listed in Nos. 10 and 11 of the separate sheet among the facts charged against the Defendants, and each violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by receiving tax invoices from D Co., Ltd. and E Co., Ltd., and each violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by receiving false tax invoices listed in No. 1 or No. 9 of the separate sheet among the facts charged against

Defendant B, as the representative director of Defendant C, has overall control over the above company’s business, and Defendant A, as an executive director of the above C, is engaged in business activities and receipt and issuance of tax invoices, and Defendant C is a corporation established for the purpose of computerized information and data processing service business.

1. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant B and A;

(a) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by receiving false tax invoices;

No person shall be issued a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services.

Nevertheless, on April 1, 2016, the Defendants issued a tax invoice of the amount equivalent to KRW 213,100,000 of the supply value from the operator of the above G, even though the Defendants did not receive H equipment from the corporation C office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul.

(b) No person that is obliged to obtain a tax invoice in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the failure to receive the tax invoice shall obtain any goods or services in collusion with the supplier;

Nevertheless, even though C was selected by J as a manager of the K Construction Business, and around March 2016, the Defendants did not receive a tax invoice in collusion with M as the competent manager of the above L, even though C was supplied goods or services equivalent to the sum of supply values of H equipment-related goods or services equivalent to KRW 213,100,000 from L.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to receive goods or services equivalent to 213,100,000 won and did not receive a tax invoice in collusion with the supplier.

2. Defendant C

The Defendant, in collusion with B, who is the representative director of the Defendant, at the same date and time as in paragraph (1), was issued a false tax invoice without being supplied with actual goods or services as in paragraph (1), or did not receive goods or services in collusion with the supplier, at the time and place as in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B;

1. Each police statement concerning N;

1. A tax invoice (G), a certificate of fact of transaction, M-e-mail, and a written estimate;

1. A written accusation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A and B: Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 10(2)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the receipt of tax invoices and the choice of imprisonment)

(b) Defendant C: The text of Article 18 and Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt of false tax invoices), the text of Article 18 and Article 10(2)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt of tax invoices);

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A and B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (a)

(b) Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (a heavier penalty than the penalty provided for in the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to a receipt of a false tax invoice)

[Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "any person who commits an offense under Articles 3 through 6, 10, and 12 through 14 shall not be subject to the aggravated restriction on concurrence of fines under Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act." Article 18 of the same Act provides that "if a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation or an individual commits an offense under this Act in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions." First of all, any person to whom Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act applies is applicable is limited to "a person who commits an offense", and it does not extend to "a person who is punished by a fine together with an offender," but it shall not be deemed "offender" on the ground that Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is not applicable to a person who is punished by a fine under the joint penal provision.

Therefore, Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act does not apply to the concurrence of fines with respect to Defendant C who is punished by a fine in accordance with joint penal provisions of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act applies to the case.

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A and B: Each Criminal Code Article 62(1)(The following extenuating circumstances are considered for the reasons for sentencing)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant C: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A and B

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to four years; and

(b) Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria;

Since the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the receipt of false tax invoices on which the sentencing criteria are set and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the failure to receive the tax invoices on which the sentencing criteria are not set are concurrent crimes, the lower limit of the sentence scope shall be based on the lower limit of the violation of the Punishment of Tax

[Determination of Punishment] Tax Offenses / 03. Acceptance, etc. of General Tax Invoice / [Type 1] less than three billion won

[Special Contributors] Reduction element: Where there is no purpose of tax evasion or any result of tax evasion has not occurred, an aggravated element: a planned systematic crime.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 6 months to 1 year

C. Determination of sentence of Defendant A and B: The following conditions shall be taken into account for each of six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence, and the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, growth process, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the scope of recommended sentence under sentencing guidelines shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors.

○ Unfavorable Conditions

Each of the crimes of this case is a serious crime that not only interferes with the legitimate exercise of the right to tax collection by the State, but also seriously damages the tax justice and disturbs sound trade order. Each of the crimes of this case is a systematic and planned crime that leads to a lack of detection of the law of the crime.

○ favorable circumstances

Defendants recognize and reflect each of the instant crimes. Defendants do not have criminal records or criminal records in excess of fines. They do not seem to have much economic benefits acquired by the Defendants, and there is no outcome of tax evasion in the course of committing a crime by receiving false tax invoices.

2. Defendant C

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Fines of 50,000 to 95,895,000 1);

(b) Non-application of sentencing criteria as a corporation punished as joint penal provisions;

(c) Determination of sentence: Fines of 20,000,000; and

Defendant C has failed to fulfill the duty of care to prevent the instant crime even though its executives participated in the instant crime, taking into account the following circumstances: Defendant A and B, a direct offender, the background of the instant crime, the degree of the relevant violation, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, and determine the punishment as ordered by the Disposition.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant B and A’s joint criminal conduct

1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice) due to receipt of false

No person shall be issued a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services for profit.

Nevertheless, on April 1, 2016, the Defendants issued a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 930,660,000 of the supply value from Q Q, the operator of the above 0, although the Defendants did not have been supplied with the PS hardware from this corporation.

The Defendants were not provided with goods or services on the same day in collusion for the purpose of profit-making, and were issued nine tax invoices listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 9 in the aggregate amount of supply value of 3,445,600,000.

2) A person obliged to obtain a tax invoice for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the receipt of a false tax invoice shall not obtain a tax invoice in collusion with the supplier, while receiving the supply of goods or services.

A) Nevertheless, at the C office on April 1, 2016, the Defendants received a false tax invoice of KRW 5.514 million in the column of supply, in collusion with S and D’s representative director, as if the Defendants were to receive only HPx86 SP x86 servers equivalent to the supply price of KRW 449,45,370 from R Co., Ltd., even though they received only the supply price of KRW 5,064,54,630 from D Co., Ltd., and received a false tax invoice of KRW 5.514 million in the column of supply price.

B) On April 1, 2016, the Defendants received a tax invoice in collusion with the above U representative director, W and E’s competent manager X, stating the amount of KRW 1,507,041,00 in the supply column, as long as the Defendants received only VV software equivalent to KRW 1,334,91,000,000 from U, even though they received only the supply price of KRW 17,2130,00 from U, but were supplied by E.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to receive goods or services and received a tax invoice containing false information in collusion with the supplier.

3) No person liable to obtain a tax invoice in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the failure to receive the tax invoice shall obtain the tax invoice in collusion with the supplier upon receipt of the goods or services.

Nevertheless, even though C was selected by J as a manager of the K Construction Business, and around March 2016, the Defendants did not receive a tax invoice in collusion with C, a person with the above competent authority, even though C was supplied with the PS-related goods and services equivalent to KRW 8,510,144,630, the total value of supply from D Co., Ltd., but did not receive a tax invoice in collusion with D Co., Ltd. on March 2016, even though C was supplied with the supply of VV-related goods and services equivalent to KRW 1,334,91,00, the total value of supply from E Co., Ltd.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to receive goods or services equivalent to the total value of 9,845,055,630 won and did not receive a tax invoice in collusion with the supplier.

B. Defendant C

The Defendant, in collusion with B and Executive Director, the representative director of the Defendant, at the same date and time as the above paragraph (a), did not receive any actual goods or services as described in the above paragraph (a), or did not receive any false tax invoice, or received any false tax invoice, or received any actual goods or services.

2. Summary of the Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion

A. The transaction related to each tax invoice listed in the separate sheet on the list of crimes (hereinafter referred to as "each transaction in this case") actually paid the price to the purchaser. The Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant C") made an agreement on the supply price, the supply item, the unit price, and the quantity through each transaction in this case, and the profits and losses arising from the transfer of ownership were attributed to each transaction in this case. Accordingly, each transaction in this case constitutes a real transaction.

B. The IT industry does not directly supply a product to a customer company, but carries out a policy that distributes the product through a collaborative company. Defendant A and B entered into a contract with the collaborative company designated by T after hearing from the subcontractor of the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) to the end that they would cause the delivery of the PSS. In the case of the VV hardware, it is issued a tax invoice upon receipt of the proposal that “E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) will receive the hardware from the representative director of the U Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “U”) and deliver it as the software. Accordingly, there was no intention that Defendant A and B would receive the tax invoice without being supplied with the goods or services, receive the false tax invoice, receive the goods or services, or receive the supply of the goods or services.

C. Co., Ltd. did not gain economic benefits from the receipt of false tax invoices and false tax invoices. Accordingly, Defendant A and B are not recognized as profit-making purposes.

D. Since there was no direct transactional relationship between D, E and Defendant C, Defendant C has not been issued a tax invoice from the above companies.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

A business operator who provides goods pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act receives a tax invoice and issues a tax invoice to the business operator who receives the goods, and further, a person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed a business operator who does not form a nominal legal relationship with the business operator who actually receives the goods or services or a person who actually trades the goods or services from the business operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2008Do1715, Jul. 24, 2008).

Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods as a taxable object of value-added tax" and Article 6(1) provides that "the supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds." In light of the fact that value-added tax has characteristics as a multi-stage transaction tax, "delivery or transfer" under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all acts causing the transfer of authority to use and consume goods, regardless of the existence of profits gained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001). In such a case, whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined individually and specifically by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the purpose and developments and mode of the transaction for each transaction, the owner of profits, and the payment relationship of consideration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du13446, Jun. 23, 2009).

In addition, the fact that there is a real transaction, such as entering into a contract for the supply of goods or services, means a binding agreement between the parties to the transaction that the supply of goods or services is binding. Accordingly, there is a need for an agreement on the supply price, items, unit price, quantity, etc., which are stipulated as one of the matters to be entered in a tax invoice under Article 16(1)3 and 5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 53(1)3 and 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11382, Jan. 1, 2012). In a sales contract, the subject matter and the price are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of entering into the contract, and the method and criteria for specifying them later are sufficient if the method and criteria are established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da26176

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

1) On January 19, 2016, J posted a notice of “K Construction Project” (hereinafter “instant Project”), and the closing date for application for participation was February 11, 2016.

2) On February 3, 2016, the head of the E-X team sent to Defendant A a letter of e-mail stating that “I will receive a successful bid with a good amount, and if I will make a correction of dcrrrrrrrrrrte to be sent in accordance therewith” (Evidence No. 142 pages). The above e-mail was accompanied by a written estimate of KRW 1,203,076,00 (excluding value-added tax) for the total estimated amount of February 3, 2016 related to Vrter (Evidence No. 143 of the Evidence Record).

3) On February 11, 2016, T of the business department of D sent a final estimate to Defendant A of the Department of Justice. The e-mail sent to Defendant A of this case an e-mail with the content that “I would calculate the number at which I would make a tender by adding Y, other than the server, to the last customer” (No. 134 of the evidence record). The e-mail was accompanied by a estimate (Evidence No. 135 of the evidence No. 11,490,754,00 won (Evidence No. 135 of the evidence record) of the estimate (Evidence No. 135 of the value-added tax) of November 11, 2015 and a estimate (Evidence No. 139 of the value-added tax) of the estimated amount No. 8,891,985,00 won (Evidence No. 139 of the evidence record).

4) Defendant C was selected as the principal business operator of the instant project on February 23, 2016, and entered into a standard purchase contract with J on February 26, 2016 as follows.

1. Name of K: Contract price: 13,953,60,000 won of supply price, value-added tax of 1,395,360,000 won of value-added tax of 15,348,960,000 won: The delivery period: April 35, 2016: The delivery period: the delivery place: the installation limit of the site and the installation limit of 6.6.6. other: 5 days before the payment period: One year;

5) Around February 26, 2016, U representative W proposed that Defendant A deliver V software and hardware together, and Defendant A consented thereto.

6) On March 2, 2016, JJJ: (a) installed the integrated Pice 3, SN and data transmission device 5, (b) NAS engine 6, (c) March 3, 2016, and (d) March 4, 2016; (b) on March 4, 2016; (c) installed VZ server 28, and (d) Co., Ltd. installed H equipment (Solris integrated server 2) on the same day. Equipment and software related to the instant project were installed on March 7, 2016.

7) From March 7, 2016 to the 18th day of the same month, Defendant C and Cooperation continued to form a network, set up a connection environment, set up mileages, and copy data for the transition of non-Suspension service. On March 19, 2016, Defendant C and Cooperation succeeded to the transfer of services to Seoul, Southern, and Chungcheongbuk from the JA on March 19, 2016.

8) On March 11, 2016, Defendant B sent to Defendant A an e-mail stating that “C-AB company’s supply tools and partnership relationship with the purchaser in the instant project, currently in progress, is known to Defendant A. For example, D-AB company ? D’s E-B company ? purchase estimates: 1.5 billion won, V-AB company ? ? AB company ? 'AB company : the total purchase estimates : 50 million won, AC company : 50 million won, AC company : : 50 million won, AC company : 50 million won, : the purchase cost was determined, but the purchase cost was determined but the amount was stated (Evidence No. 131 of the No. 131 of the evidence record). Defendant A is currently related to each item of the instant project, and Defendant A also prepared the content of the pre-determined customer’s purchase specifications and the pre-determined customer’s related products (Evidence No. 1 of the No. 2) based on the predetermined 31’s.

9) Defendant C requested the J to examine on March 21, 2016, and Defendant C received an inspection report from a partner and submitted it to the J.

10) On March 24, 2016, J conducted an examination of server equipment at the J-State ICT Center, and on March 25, 2016, J conducted an examination of storage devices, backup devices, and software.

11) On March 30, 2016, the head of the D Business Department designated D as the purchasing company that D could not directly supply D to Defendant C with the manufacture of the P listed goods. He received the supply from the designated company of D (hereinafter referred to as “R”), 0 stock companies (hereinafter referred to as “AE”), AE companies (hereinafter referred to as “AF”), AF companies (hereinafter referred to as “AF”), AH companies (hereinafter referred to as “AH”), AH companies (hereinafter referred to as “AI”), and AI companies (hereinafter referred to as “AI”), as the purchasing company. On the same day, the Defendant agreed between T and D collaborative companies as 8.5 billion won in total.

12) The instant project was completed on April 1, 2016. On the same day, J issued a tax invoice of KRW 13,953,60,000 for the supply price to Defendant C, and on April 8, 2016, paid KRW 15,348,960,000, including value-added tax, to Defendant C (Evidence No. 212 pages).

13) On April 2016, the team leader of the EX demanded that the tax invoice for the computer equipment supplied by the Defendant A be received from U.S. that supplied the V software.

14) D Subcontractors, U, from April 11, 2016 to February 2016, submitted a quotation, goods contract, etc. to Defendant A, which was written retrospectively from the date of February 2016. Defendant A sent a written order to D Subcontractors (the name, size, quantity, unit price, and amount of each product are written in detail). The written order for each company, written order, and written order are written in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

15) From April 11, 2016, D Subcontractors, U, from around April 11, 2016, issued to Defendant C the same tax invoice as indicated in the separate sheet of crime (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”). The details of the issuance of tax invoices between the aforementioned companies and the Defendant are as shown in the separate sheet of tax invoice in attached Table 3. Defendant C paid an amount including the value of supply and value-added tax to D subcontractors and U on April 19, 2016 (Evidence No. 212 pages of evidence record).

C. Determination as to whether a real transaction is made

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence, each of the instant tax invoices is suspected of not stating false tax invoices or supply values in which no goods or services are supplied.

① A tax invoice, quotation, order sheet, etc. issued by Defendant C, etc. issued by D Subcontractors, U, was prepared retrospectively from April 11, 2016 when the instant project was completed.

② D Subcontractors did not play a particular role in the process of delivery, installation, and examination of equipment provided for the instant project, and D and E transferred, installed, and examined PSz, VV, etc. to J.

③ The purchase scheme of each of the instant transactions was completed even before the inspection of the instant project, and was finalized on March 30, 2016 immediately before the completion of the project.

However, in light of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that each of the instant transactions constitutes a real transaction in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by this court’s lawfully adopted and investigated evidence. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is with merit.

① Defendant C agreed with D Subcontractors and U on the supply value, supply items, unit price, quantity, etc. of goods or services traded through a quotation, order sheet, or contract for each transaction of this case. In other words, Defendant C agreed with D Subcontractors and U to vest in rights and obligations relating to each transaction of this case.

There are real goods supplied under each of the tax invoices of this case, and Defendant C paid all the prices, including the value of supply and value-added tax, to D collaborative companies and U.S.

D Subcontractors, U.S. have a duty to repair the goods supplied to Defendant C upon the occurrence of a malfunction, guarantee the quality of the electronic equipment sold, and guarantee the seller's warranty liability. D Subcontractors and U paid all value-added taxes arising from the transaction.

(4) In general, IT companies, such as D and AJ limited liability companies, have a policy to supply electronic equipment, etc. to the company through a collaborative company or partnership (the results of fact-finding conducted by this court on AJ limited liability companies). IT companies can obtain the effect of distributing risks by sales promotion and securing a collaborative company capable of paying goods through such collaborative company. Although there is no fact that the computer equipment purchased by Defendant C at the time of each of the instant transactions was directly installed in J at the time of each of the instant transactions by each of the instant collaborative companies, it seems to be general that they are directly installed in the final customer company by the manufacturer or the general judge even if the contract was concluded by the collaborative company due to the nature of high-class computer equipment, so long as the “cooperative company” system is essential for the sake of stability of the purchase contract, it cannot be deemed that the process of performing the said electronic equipment purchase contract directly performed by the research or the general judge to the final customer company for convenience among the contracting parties.

⑤ Around February 26, 2016, Defendant C agreed with U to be provided with V hardware and software together, and it appears that D Subcontractors agreed on the distribution structure that the goods are supplied by D subcontractors around March 30, 2016. The instant project is recognized as a circumstance in which the payment period was 40 days from the date of the contract, and Defendant A, B, and B focused on the supply and installation of server and storage equipment within the period of the contract.

④ Some of the contracts in the instant case are agreed to transfer the ownership of computer equipment at the time of payment. R,0, AE, AF, and U acquired the ownership of the relevant computer equipment by paying the purchase price, and thereafter, the ownership of the relevant computer equipment was transferred by receiving the payment from Defendant C. The transfer of the ownership of movable property can be done without delivering the real property. As such, R,O, AE, AF, and U acquired the profits from the transaction according to the transfer of ownership of the computer equipment.

7) The instant goods are high-priced computer equipment (ber and stove), and each purchaser does not take a method of inspecting the instant goods into the land in each distribution phase due to the characteristics of the product, and supply and installation to the final buyer without examining the relevant goods. The method of inspecting the relevant goods by the purchaser is ordinary. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant goods are false processing transactions on the ground that each transaction phase was not actually delivered to the purchaser.

D. Determination on intention

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court in the above facts, it is insufficient to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone by the defendant A and B was insufficient to deem that the tax invoice Nos. 1 through 9 in the annexed crime list was issued without the supply of goods or services, or that the tax invoice Nos. 10 and 11 in the annexed crime list was entered in the false statement, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the defendants' assertion is with merit.

① On March 11, 2016, Defendant B sent the e-mail that Defendant A would be aware of the supply tools of the instant project, and Defendant A sent the e-mail that the purchase tools of D and E are prior to the confirmation date. As such, Defendant B and A appears to have been aware that they could purchase through D and E’s collaborative companies, etc. in accordance with the distribution policies of the IT industry even before the purchase tools are determined.

B around February 26, 2016, the U representative director W proposed that Defendant A deliver V software and hardware together to Defendant A, and Defendant A consented thereto. U is also a partner dealing with V products.

③ Defendant C paid both the value of supply and value-added tax as stated in each of the instant tax invoices to D Subcontractors and U even though D Subcontractors except R did not have any usual transaction with U.S... The profits earned by Defendant C from each of the instant transactions are about KRW 200 million.

④ On February 11, 2016, India notified Defendant A of the total purchase amount of the storage device and KRW 8.8 billion, and designated D Subcontractors and the total purchase amount to Defendant A of March 30, 2016, and Defendant A of this case appears to have accepted the purchase amount. As such, T determined the purchase amount for D subcontractors prior to the transfer period. Defendant A and B appears to have been unaware of the said purchase amount until March 30, 2016.

(e) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to failure to receive the tax invoice;

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court in the above facts, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the contractual relationship between Defendant C, D, and E is recognized, or that Defendant C did not receive a tax invoice in collusion with the above company to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is with merit.

① D issued a tax invoice of approximately KRW 2.6 billion in total of supply values to AK, AL, and AM, a general judge (Evidence No. 668 of the Evidence Records).

E also issued a tax invoice of KRW 860,000,000,000,000 in total of supply values to corporation N, corporation AO, and corporation AP in connection with Viber.

③ Defendant C, not D or E, was issued a tax invoice by both D & D subcontractors having contractual relations with himself, and paid the price for them.

F. Conclusion

1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) due to the receipt of false tax invoices by Defendant

This part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as stated in Article 1-A of the above facts charged

2) Defendants B and A’s receipt of the false tax invoice and each violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the failure to receive the tax invoice

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of the facts charged, and thus, not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but should not disclose the summary of the judgment pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2)

3) Receipt of false tax invoices by Defendant C, receipt of false tax invoices, and violation of each Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to non-receiving of the tax invoices

This part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of the facts charged, and thus, not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but should not disclose the summary of the judgment pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2)

Judges Kim Gung-sung

Judges Kim Gon Line

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.