logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.03.17 2016노1590
조세범처벌법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. When considering the account transaction details of the defendant's account transaction with I, the defendant made a real transaction with I;

It should be seen that there was a real transaction between the defendant and E.

As such, the tax invoice issued by the Defendant on January 31, 2013 and February 28, 2013 should be deemed to have been issued in the absence of the receipt of goods or services.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant did not receive a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied with goods or services as to the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant was issued a false tax invoice as if he was supplied with goods or services equivalent to KRW 260,454,545, although he/she had not received goods or services from E on January 31, 2013, and was issued a false tax invoice as if he/she had received goods or services in the same place around February 28, 2013, even though he/she had not received goods or services from E, even though he/she had not received goods or services from E.

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

[Basic legal doctrine] The term “person who has issued or received a tax invoice without supplying goods or services” refers to a person who has issued or received a processed tax invoice without performing a real transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8069, Oct. 29, 2009). Therefore, in cases where a real transaction is conducted, where a tax invoice stating false information on the supply price arising from a real transaction is issued, Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act does not apply.

must be viewed.

[Fact-finding] ① The Defendant operates D while operating D.

arrow