[2] The case affirming the judgment below that imposed a fine on the defendant who issued a false tax invoice which disguised transaction applying the zero tax rate on the basis of the total amount of supply value, etc.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below that imposed a fine on the defendant who issued a false tax invoice which disguiseds transaction eligible for zero tax rate without supplying goods or services for commercial purposes on the basis of the total amount of supply value, etc. calculated by applying the value-added tax rate

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted, the court below found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged in the crime of forging and uttering of private documents, events, forgery of signature, and uttering against the defendant, on the ground that it cannot be presumed that the defendant's act was permitted as the representative director of the non-indicted 2 corporation under the name of the non-indicted 1, and that he was permitted to conduct an investigation while carrying out the investigation by the National Tax Service, etc., and in fact, the defendant prepared the documents of this case in the name of non-indicted 1 in order to conceal the crime of issuing the defendant's false tax invoices, and there was a possibility of punishment or disadvantage because the non-indicted 1 was mistaken for the defendant's act of committing the crime, and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the non-indicted 1 knew about the preparation of the documents of this case and all objective circumstances at the time of the defendant's act, and in light of the circumstances cited in the judgment of the court below, the judgment below is acceptable.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The gist of the above grounds of appeal is that there is an error of law that misleads the court below about facts premised on the determination of the punishment against the defendant, and ultimately constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing (if the above grounds of appeal are viewed as a legal principal, this shall not only have been brought in the grounds of appeal, but also shall not be a legitimate ground of appeal, as it relates to the cases where the court below did not consider the defendant as the object of the judgment ex officio). According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for those cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been sentenced. Thus, the above argument in this case where a more minor sentence

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

Article 8-2 (1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that a person who issues or receives a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying goods or services for profit in violation of Article 11-2 (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010) shall be subject to aggravated punishment based on the total amount of supply value, etc., of which the person who issues or receives the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act is subject to aggravated punishment. Article 8-2 (2) of the same Act provides that the person who issues a false tax invoice shall be punished concurrently for the purpose of eradicating the evasion of tax evasion by issuing a false tax invoice for profit-making purposes, and that the provision of false tax rate shall be applied only to the case where a false tax invoice, such as corporate tax, is issued in the calculation of deductible expenses, and that the provision of value-added tax shall be applied only to the defendant.

In the above purport, it is reasonable for the court below to impose a fine concurrently on the defendant, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the "value-added Tax Rate" as provided in the above provision.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)