[1] The meaning of "the act of issuing or receiving a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services" under Article 11-2 (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty by applying Article 11-2 (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on the ground that the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is established when a false tax invoice was not received, and that the issuance of the tax invoice was not received from the typical so-called "data" in the business of issuing the tax invoice without the supply of goods or services

[1] Article 11-2 (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders (amended by Act No. 7321 of Dec. 31, 2004) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders (amended by Act No. 7321 of Dec. 31, 2004) punishs “the act of issuing or delivering a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services.” This includes not only the act of delivering or receiving a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services, but also the case of receiving a tax invoice prepared by a person other than the actual supplier of the goods or services.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty by applying Article 11-2 (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321 of Dec. 31, 2004) on the ground that the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is established when a false tax invoice was not received, and that it is not different even if a tax invoice was not received from the typical so-called "data" in the business of issuing the tax invoice without the supply of goods or services

[1] Article 11-2 (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321 of Dec. 31, 2004) (see current Article 10 (3)) / [2] Article 11-2 (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321 of Dec. 31, 2004) (see current Article 10 (3))

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do655 Decided June 25, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1280) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3362 Decided December 27, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 174) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1715 Decided July 24, 2008

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Incheon District Court Decision 2007No1416 Decided November 23, 2007

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 11-2(4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same) punishs the act of issuing or delivering a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services. This includes not only the act of delivering or receiving a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services, but also the case of receiving a tax invoice prepared by a person other than the actual supplier of the goods or services.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged by applying Article 11-2 (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on the ground that inasmuch as the Defendants received the instant false tax invoice from the Nonindicted Party through the Nonindicted Party, even though they did not receive the instant tax invoice from the “data,” which is a typical business of issuing the tax invoice without supplying goods or services, it does not change the above, on the ground that the Defendants did not receive the instant tax invoice from the “data,” and that in light of the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. In addition, the Defendants asserted that the indictment of this case should be dismissed on the grounds that the facts charged are different from the facts charged. However, according to the accusation (the second page of the investigation record), the gist of the accusation is that the Defendants received a false tax invoice without real trade, and the Defendants did not have any real trade with a person who prepared and issued a tax invoice to the Defendants. Thus, the above accusation cannot be deemed to be different from the facts charged. Accordingly, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)