beta
Main Issues
Whether a person merely registered as a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act falls under the category of "person who is required to prepare and deliver a tax invoice under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act" under Article 11-2 (1)
Summary of Judgment
Article 11-2 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "a person liable to prepare and deliver a tax invoice under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act" shall mean a person liable to prepare and issue a tax invoice specifically by supplying goods or services in fact by a person registered as a business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act. Thus, this provision shall not apply to cases where a business operator is merely registered under the Value
[Reference Provisions]
Article 11-2 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 88Do2337 delivered on February 28, 1989; 92Do2417 delivered on June 28, 1994; 95Do100 delivered on April 25, 1995
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
Judgment of the lower court
Gwangju District Court Decision 94No691 delivered on December 2, 1994
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 11-2 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "a person liable to prepare and deliver a tax invoice under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act" shall mean a person liable to prepare and deliver a tax invoice specifically by supplying goods or services in fact by a person registered as an entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do2337, Feb. 28, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 92Do2417, Jun. 28, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 95Do100, Apr. 25, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 95Do100, Apr. 25, 1995).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rendered not guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)