logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.01.27 2010노4693
조세범처벌법위반
Text

The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

(2).

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking into account the previous experiences of the operators of the prosecutor F, H, and G (hereinafter “sub-contractors”), the details of the establishment of the divided companies, the actual duties of the divided companies, the management of funds, and the subject of the act of issuing tax invoices, etc., the divided companies are merely in charge of performing the duties of discretionary processing without compensation under the direction of the J (hereinafter “J”), and the divided companies cannot be deemed to have received semi-finished goods, etc. from L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”), and the processed services provided by them are entirely different from the details indicated in the tax invoice. Therefore, the total value of supply stated in the instant tax invoice issued by the divided companies is false.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the portion related to each tax invoice under the name of the divided enterprises, which is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

B. Defendants (1) 1) a tax invoice issued by mistake of facts and delivered to J is not false because it conforms to the substance of the transaction. Defendant A did not have any awareness that the said tax invoice was false. Defendant B did not participate in the receipt of the said tax invoice. In view of the fact that the Defendants merely received the tax invoice according to the existing practice and did not intend to evade the tax, the sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment and Defendant B: 1 year of suspended sentence on June) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts concerning the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake (not guilty part) is that the Defendants conspired to provide simple services for processing to the J and received a processed tax invoice in good faith, even though AC(F), AF(G), and AD(H were provided free of charge.

Article 7 (3) of the Value-Added Tax Act does not receive any consideration.

arrow