특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, by mistake of facts, was entitled to the deduction of value-added tax by obtaining a tax invoice from five suppliers, including D (hereinafter “D”) in a normal manner while purchasing the actual closing operation, etc. from five buyers. The Defendant’s tax invoice received by the Defendant is not false, nor was it unjustly evaded value-added tax by fraud or other unlawful means.
Even if the above purchaser is not a trading entity that actually supplies waste buildings, the Defendant was unaware of such circumstances.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, and a fine of 1.5 billion won) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant asserted that the above mistake of facts was alleged in the court below, and the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, and rejected the Defendant’s above assertion, on the grounds of the reasons stated in its reasoning, such as D and other related business owners’ accusation or punishment, and the transaction status between the Plaintiff and the purchaser, even though the Defendant was supplied with a closed operation from the “non-data buyers” for the purpose of tax evasion, it can be recognized that the Defendant could evade the value-added tax equivalent to the amount of value-added tax by receiving a false tax invoice of this case from the purchaser and filing a false tax invoice of this case with the tax office, as if he was supplied with the closed operation from the “non-data buyers” for the purpose of tax evasion.
Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment is just and acceptable, and it is so argued by the defendant.