A. (1) The other party who entered into an original purchase contract with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) and supplied the goods accordingly is I (I; hereinafter “I”) and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) did not actually supply the goods.

The original contract with Defendant C and I is a nominal transaction.

Even if the contract between Defendant C and Defendant B cannot be deemed as legal fiction.

Ultimately, Defendant C is not obligated to issue a value-added tax invoice to Defendant B, and Defendant B is not obligated to receive the said tax invoice.

See his claim that he is obligated to issue tax invoices under the Value Added Tax Act to Defendant C.

Even if the Defendants were to be aware that Defendant C actually supplied the original team, and thus, the Defendants cannot be recognized as having committed a crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

B. The punishment of the first instance of sentencing (the punishment of the defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended sentence; 50 million won of each fine of the defendant B and the defendant C) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine the argument of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles together with the argument I and II.

(1) Article 10(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that “A person who is obligated to prepare and issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act” refers only to a person who is registered as an entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act and is obligated to prepare and issue a tax invoice specifically by supplying goods or services (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do2168 delivered on July 13, 199, etc.). In accordance with the substance over form principle, a person who is obliged to provide goods or services and issue a tax invoice must be a person who actually supplies goods or services in whose name he/she uses them.

Dor. Dor. Dor.