beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.17 2019노1553

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice), which is the primary charge, among the facts charged in the instant case, and found the Defendant guilty on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which is the ancillary charge. The Defendant filed an appeal only for the

Therefore, although the part of the judgment of the court below on acquittal of the above reasons is judged in the trial, since it goes out of the object of attack and defense by the parties and goes out of the object of trial, this part shall be determined by the conclusion of the judgment of the court below and shall not be judged again

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that F cannot issue a tax invoice because it does not register as a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act, and it does not constitute a person obligated to prepare and issue a tax invoice under Article 10(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter the same shall apply). Therefore, the Defendant did not receive a tax invoice from F after being supplied with computer parts, etc. (hereinafter “instant goods”) as shown in the attached Table 3 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.

No rate shall be determined as a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Furthermore, the Defendant received credit card sales slip from F (hereinafter “I, etc.”) related to the supply of the instant goods from F. The Defendant constitutes a business entity that is exempt from the obligation to issue a tax invoice in substitution for the issuance of a tax invoice with a credit card sales slip under the Value-Added Tax Act. In this regard, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in relation to the receipt of the tax invoice.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant did not receive a tax invoice in collusion with F.