(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.2.9. 선고 2017고합356 판결

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and by a fine of 900,000,000,000, and by a fine of 400,000,000,000, as stated in the holding, for a crime specified in Article 2017 or 356 of the Decree, for a crime specified in Article 2017 or 201 or 504 of the Decree. If Defendant A fails to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

The sentence shall be suspended against Defendant B and C. The order of provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fines is issued against Defendant A. In the facts charged against Defendant B and C, the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the submission of a list of total false tax invoices among the facts charged against Defendant B and C shall be acquitted.1) The summary of the acquittal portion in the judgment shall be announced publicly.

Reasons

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On January 8, 2010, Defendant A was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the Seoul Southern District Court on March 25, 2010, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 16, 2010, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on December 16, 2010 (criminal facts) [2] 2017 Gohap356

1. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice) by Defendant A;

The defendant is the actual representative of H Co., Ltd. (I, hereinafter referred to as the "B in the name of the representative director I, hereinafter referred to as the "B") and C (hereinafter referred to as the "C" in combination before and after the change of the name of the representative director J, K of the trade name before the change; hereinafter referred to as the "C").

The Defendant planned to issue a false tax invoice in the name of the above B and C, upon receiving fees from the companies that did not receive a proper tax invoice from the seller.

(a) Issuance of false tax invoices;

1) Around May 9, 2011, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice of KRW 67,900,000 in supply value, pretending to supply goods to the KABA, notwithstanding that B did not supply goods to the KAB engineering, the Defendant, as if he supplied goods to the KABA, issued a false tax invoice of KRW 67,90,00.

For profit, the Defendant, including this, issued 61 false tax invoices of KRW 2,712,428,737, including the total value of supply in the case of the KCAB to March 29, 2012, such as the list of crimes (1).

2) On April 26, 2011, the Defendant issued 44 copies of false tax invoices worth KRW 1,700,95,588 in total of supply value as shown in the separate sheet of crime (2) from April 26, 2011 to January 25, 2012, as shown in the separate sheet of crime (2), as if the above C supplied goods to L, as if it were the most false supply price of goods.

(b) Submission of false aggregate tax invoices;

1) B Related to the Company B

A) On July 25, 2011, the Defendant reported the establishment of value-added tax at the Sinsi-dong 1799-1, Sinsi-dong 179-1, the Defendant submitted to the Sinsi Tax Office a false statement of the total value of supply in the aggregate of the total tax invoices by seller, which is the most fictitious of supply of goods to the U.S. Communications (State) without supplying the goods.

B) On October 25, 2011, the Defendant filed a return of value-added tax base for the second period of 201 with the said Market Tax Office on the said Market Tax Office around October 25, 201, and the Defendant, despite that B did not supply goods to M, submitted to the Market Tax Office a false entry of the total supply value of KRW 28,80,000 in the aggregate of the total supply value of the tax invoices by each seller, as if B supplied goods to M.

C) On January 27, 2012, the Defendant filed a return on the confirmation of value-added tax for the first period of 201 with the said Market Tax Office (201) around January 27, 2012. In fact, although B did not supply goods to N, as if B supplied goods to N, the Defendant falsely entered and submitted to the Market Tax Office a total of 61,100,000 won of the supply value in the aggregate of the total tax invoices by each seller (61,10,000 won). The Defendant filed a return on the confirmation of value-added tax for profit-making purposes on July 25, 2011 with the said Market Tax Office (201) around July 25, 2011, the Defendant submitted a false list of supply value by seller (456,00,000 won) by pretending that B was supplied with goods by the Bank of Commerce, etc., and submitted it to the Market Tax Office (B).

E) For profit-making purposes, the Defendant reported the scheduled value-added tax return for the second year of 201 to the said Si Accounting Book on January 10, 2011, and submitted a false list of the total supply value of KRW 801,00,000 to the Si Accounting Book, as if B did not receive any goods from the KCAR, etc., the Defendant pretended to be supplied with the goods from the KCAR, etc., and submitted it to the Si Accounting Book.

F) On January 27, 2012, the Defendant reported the establishment of the value-added tax for the second period in 2011 to the said Market Accounting Book. The Defendant submitted a false list of tax invoices by seller, which totaled KRW 809,000,000, under the presumption that B was supplied with goods by Han-gu, etc. without being supplied with goods by Han-gu, etc. by Han-gu, etc. in spite of the fact that B did not receive the goods from Han-gu, etc.

G) On April 25, 2012, the Defendant reported the establishment of value-added tax for the first year of 2012 to the said Market Tax Office, and submitted to the Market Tax Office a false list of tax invoices by seller, which total value of KRW 517,700,000, by pretending to be supplied with goods from zero, etc., notwithstanding that B was not supplied with goods from zero, etc.

2) Co., Ltd. C

A) On January 25, 2012, the Defendant filed a return on the confirmation of value-added tax for the first time in the said Market Tax Office (201) around January 25, 2012, and submitted to the Market Tax Office for profit-making purposes by falsely stating the total amount of KRW 11,00,000 in the aggregate of the supply values of the total tax invoices by the seller, as if C did not supply the goods to P, etc., by falsely stating the supply of the goods to P, etc. (b) the Defendant filed a return on the confirmation of value-added tax for the first time in July 25, 2011 with the said Market Tax Office (23,70,000,000,000 in total, as if C had not been supplied with the goods from the R, etc., the Defendant submitted a false report on the confirmation of value-added tax for each seller to the Market Tax Office.

C) On October 25, 2011, the Defendant filed a return on the scheduled value-added tax return for the second period of 201 in the said Market Income Tax Office, and submitted a tax invoice for each seller, stating in the Market Income Tax Office the total amount of supply value of KRW 210,000,000, total of supply value by seller, as if Q was supplied with goods from Q, notwithstanding that C did not receive any goods from Q.

D) On January 25, 2012, the Defendant reported the establishment of the value-added tax for the second year of 201 to the said Silor Tax Office, and submitted to the Silor Tax Office a false list of tax invoices by seller, which total value of KRW 957,00,00,000, by pretending to be supplied with goods from the LAR, etc., notwithstanding that C did not receive goods from the LAR, etc., as if it were supplied by the LAR, etc.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by Defendant B

The defendant, who is the representative of the defendant, committed an act in violation of paragraph (1) (B) in relation to the defendant's business.

The defendant in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.) by the defendant A runs "T in the Gu S during Ansan-si."

1. Submission of a list of false tax invoices by customer;

For the purpose of profit-making, the Defendant entered a list of total tax invoices by customer under the Value-Added Tax Act and submitted it to the Government.

A. On January 25, 2007, the Defendant submitted to the said tax office a list of total tax invoices of 2006, stating that the Defendant issued 30 copies of total sales tax invoices of KRW 941,252,50 to six companies, such as Won C&S, although the LAT did not supply goods or services to six companies, such as the KABS, etc., in spite of the absence of the fact that the LAC has supplied goods or services to the said six companies.

B. On July 25, 2007, the Defendant submitted to the pertinent tax office a total of 61 tax invoices for each of 2007, stating that the Defendant issued 919,259,000 won total of the supply value to 13 companies, including the said LAC, although the Defendant did not supply goods or services to 13 companies, such as the LAC, led by the KAT, etc.

2. Submission of a list of false tax invoices by seller;

For the purpose of profit-making, the Defendant entered a list of total tax invoices by seller under the Value-Added Tax Act and submitted it to the Government.

A. On January 25, 2007, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller to the above tax office in 2006, stating that the Defendant received a total of 872,910,000 won of the supply price from four companies, such as U.S., although the Plaintiff did not receive goods or services from four companies, such as U.S., in spite of the fact that the Plaintiff received a total of 21 tax invoices by seller from the above four companies.

B. On July 25, 2007, the Defendant submitted to the above tax office a list of total tax invoices by seller by seller of January 2007, stating that the Plaintiff received 821,550,000 won total of the supply price from two companies, such as Alsan Alsan Industries and U.S. A.U.S.C., without being supplied goods or services from two companies, such as A.S. and A.U.C., the fact that the Plaintiff submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller by seller of January 2007 to the above tax office. "2017Dahap8666, Defendant C violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act."

The defendant, a representative of the defendant, committed the same act as the statement in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts in the case No. 2017 Gohap356 in relation to the defendant's business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Previous records: Criminal records, inquiry reports, each written judgment, investigation reports (Attachment to attached documents, etc. of a suspect A's violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, reporting on confirmation of the fact of repeated crimes, and personal confinement), "2017 Gohap356" and "2017 Gohap866;

1. Each legal statement of Defendant B and C

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness V, W, I, and J;

1. Statement by the prosecution against X;

1. Statement of the police about Y;

1. Each written accusation;

1. A report on the completion of investigation, a list of total tax invoices by customer, a list of total tax invoices by customer, each list of total tax invoices by customer, each electronic tax invoice, each list of sales electronic tax invoices, each tax invoice, each general taxable person's final return of value-added tax, each general taxable person's preliminary return of the value-added tax, each electronic tax invoice, each copy of each account transaction statement, a copy of the explanation of Z representative director of the RR, QA's explanation, a copy of QA's confirmation statement, a copy of the investigation report of the receiver of the processed tax invoice, and the current status of processing of the transaction data in the B

1. Each investigation report, 2017, 504;

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of AB;

1. Each police statement made to AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, and AI;

1. AJ and AK's written statements;

1. A written accusation;

1. Upon completion of an investigation on the data, a report on the completion of the investigation, a specification of processing sales places, a specification of processing sales places, a reference screen for a list of the total tax invoices by seller at each seller on February 2, 2006, a list of the total tax invoices by seller at each seller, a list of the total tax invoices by seller at each seller (2th of February 2006), a list of the total tax invoices by seller at each seller (2nd of February 2006), a list of the total tax invoices by seller at each seller, a certificate of transaction, a list of the total tax invoices by seller at each seller in January 207, 207

1. Each report on investigation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article 8-2 (1) 1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 10 (3) 1 and 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (including the issuance of false tax invoices and the submission of a list of total tax invoices in the name of Company B, Company C, and Company C), Article 8-2 (1) 2 and (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 11-2 (4) 3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010);

Defendant B and C: Articles 18 and 10(3)1 (the issuance of false tax invoices) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Articles 18 and 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the submission of a list of the total tax invoices)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant A: The proviso to Article 35 and Article 42 of the Criminal Act [as to imprisonment with prison labor in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice)]

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) [the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) (2017 High Gohap504] of the Criminal Act and the violation of the Punishment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant B and C: The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the sum of fines prescribed in the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, without applying Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A: Each of the Articles 53, 55(1)3, and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (the following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70(1) and (2), and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence;

Defendant B and C: Article 59(1) of each Criminal Code [The sentence of stay of sentence: Defendant B (a fine of KRW 70 million); Defendant C (a fine of KRW 50 million); and consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing as follows]

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant A: Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

B and C substantially operated AL, AM, etc., and the Defendant only worked as a regular business at the bottom thereof. The Defendant was involved only in the transactions with six companies, including N, Tae-Seved Food Manufacturing (State), A0, the Dispute Resolution New Center, AP, and Q, in relation to the issuance of false tax invoices in the names of B and C, and the remaining companies did not participate entirely in the submission of the false tax invoices and the list of false tax invoices.

2. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant set up a representative director under the name of the defendant in B and C, and the defendant actually operated it. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant directly participated in the issuance of false tax invoices and the submission of a list of false tax invoices to the remaining companies in addition to the part acknowledged by the defendant, such as being directly paid the fees for the issuance of false tax invoices to the account in the name of the defendant. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted. (1) The witness witness who is a tax official who investigated the violation of B and filed with the investigation agency against the defendant A and B by investigation into the violation of the provisions of this Act is in this court, and he was unable to contact with only some of the tax invoices without actual transaction or to properly memory who is the opposite contractual party, but the remaining companies identified the name of the defendant A or referred to the telephone number used by the defendant."

② A witness V, the representative of AO, who made a false transaction with B, stated in this Court that “B and all the above false transactions made with B were made through Defendant A. The introduction of AL by an investigative agency to the effect that a person related to the above false transactions came to know of the identity of AL, which is a processed object, and that a person in charge of the above false transaction came to talk with the investigative agency so that he/she would do so. 4% of the value of supply was traded only without a real transaction with Defendant A and paid to Defendant A as a commission. The above fee was deposited into B’s account in which Defendant A talked, and I, the representative director of B, who is a corporation, was not aware of, and was not aware of, the above false transaction.” This also stated to the effect that Defendant A was directly involved in the above false transaction.

③ In the form of B, the witness I, who is the representative director, stated in this Court that the instant crime was committed by the actual representative, not the representative director, in the name of B, on the ground that “I merely lent the name among those known for lending, and did not directly participate in the instant crime, and that he did not know at all about who was issued a false tax invoice and submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer by customer,” and that “the instant crime was committed by the actual representative, not the representative director, in the form of B.”

In the form of A, the witness J, the representative director of the Category C, stated in this court that “A was actually established and operated by the Defendant A, on the ground that “A was issued a local travel business operator, but Defendant A became its own company and became the representative director of C. In return for the creation of C as above, the amount of KRW 1 million was paid to Defendant A. In addition, Defendant A prepared relevant documents, etc.; Defendant A performed the whole process of creating a legal entity. The business of creating a legal entity was entirely carried out with the documents, etc.; Defendant A was not aware of the instant crime, such as issuance of false tax invoices in the name of C.”

⑤ At the time of the initial investigation at an investigative agency, Defendant A asserted that the Defendant himself was involved in the transaction with two companies, but thereafter, the investigative agency made a statement that the Defendant was involved in the direct transaction through the investigation of the rest of the business partners, etc., and subsequently reversed the position recognizing the Defendant’s direct transaction. In light of these circumstances, the Defendant appears to have given a statement from the investigative agency to the effect that the facts verified by evidence, etc. have been reduced in relation to the crime of T which is registered under the name of his wife. Even if the Defendant, the investigative agency denied the crime on the ground that he did not have been involved in the crime of T which is registered under the name of his wife, and then the prosecution conducted the examination of his identity after he conducted the examination.

6) Defendant A merely asserted that the investigative agency conducted B, B, and AM in substance, and that he/she was only an employee under his/her control and did not comply with a request from an investigative agency to provide basic information, such as AL, AM’s personal information, contact details, etc. Although Defendant A actually worked as an employee in B and C under the actual operation of AL and AM, it is difficult to readily understand that he/she was not well aware of the basic information even though he/she actually worked as an employee in B and C in light of the empirical rule. In addition, Defendant A’s aforementioned assertion is difficult to believe as it is, in light of the empirical rule, the J, the representative director of C’s form, made a statement to the effect that he/she was aware of only the Defendant A,

7. ① The company, each of the false transaction partners B and C, overlaps with substantial parts, and the interval between time and time is very closely close, and the circumstances, method, motive, etc. of the crime seems to coincide with each other.

8) Although Defendant A was paid a fee in return for the issuance of a false tax invoice from each enterprise, the other party to the above false transaction through an account in his/her name, Defendant A was merely an employee of Defendant A and C because the details that he/she received money in the name of payment from B, C, etc. have not been verified.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

1) Crimes against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoice): Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to 6 months, 25 years, 876, 993, 432 won or 2,192, 483, 581 won or 4) for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice): Imprisonment for 6 months, 35,497, 150 won or 88, 742, 875 won or 6) for 355,497, 150 won or 88, 875 won or more for 2017.

1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.) under Article 2017 Gohap356

[Extent of Recommendation] In the case where there is no purpose of tax evasion or any result of tax evasion has not occurred, for example, Class 2 (5 billion won or more, and less than 30 billion won) in the mitigation area (one year and six months to two years and six months), including the receipt of false tax invoices under the Special Aggravated Act

2) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoice) No. 2017Gohap50

[Extent of Recommendation] Class 1 (at least 3 billion won, less than 5 billion won) (at least 6 months of imprisonment to 6 months or 1 year and 6 months) of the mitigated area (at least 3 billion won, and less than 5 billion won);

[Special Mitigation] Where the purpose of tax evasion exists or the result of tax evasion does not occur;

[General Mitigation] Voluntary Maternity

1) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.): Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and fine of 90 million won

2) The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice): 6 months imprisonment with prison labor, and 400 million won, without any actual transaction or actual transaction, is issued by the Defendant, and falsely enters and submits a list of total tax invoices. It is significant that may disturb the national tax collection order and seriously impair the tax justice; the total value of the tax invoices, etc. issued by the Defendant in falsity exceeds 12 billion won; the Defendant, despite the fact that each company was already sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and fines on several occasions due to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; the Defendant again committed part of the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime (2017Gohap356); the Defendant, while having the record of having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and fines, issued a false tax invoice, issued a false tax invoice and submitted a false list of total tax invoices; the Defendant’s crime of violation of the latter part of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders Act is recognized as unfavorable to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, the circumstances and results of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered as ordered.

2. Defendant B

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Fines of 50,000 to 1,640,183,621 won7);

(b) Non-application of the sentencing criteria;

It is difficult to view that the Defendant has actually engaged in the instant crime because it is merely a representative director who lent only the name of the Defendant to A, and the fact that the Defendant appears not to have substantial economic benefits that the Defendant directly acquired due to the instant crime, and other various circumstances as examined in the grounds for sentencing with the Defendant A, the frequency of the instant crime, the background and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, including the circumstances after the instant crime, are considered as a whole and considered.

3. Defendant C

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Fines of 50,00 won to 990,796,6768);

(b) Non-application of the sentencing criteria;

It is difficult to view that the defendant has actually engaged in the crime of this case since he was merely a representative director who lent only the name to A, and that the representative director of the defendant is not a substantial involvement in the crime of this case. Rather, the representative director of the defendant seems to have suffered serious economic difficulties due to the tax and additional collection charges imposed on the defendant, and other various circumstances as examined in the grounds for sentencing against the defendant A, the frequency and consequence of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime of this case, shall be comprehensively considered.

2) The portion of innocence

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoices) due to Defendant A’s submission of a list of total tax invoices by falsity (2017Sang35

1) B Related to the Company B

A) On July 25, 2011, the Defendant reported the establishment of the value-added tax for the first period of 1, 201 at the Sinsi-dong 1799-1 located in Sinsi-dong 179-1, and the Defendant, despite the fact that he did not supply goods to BD, etc., submitted the Sinsi Tax Report by falsely stating the total supply value of 420,666,363 won out of the total supply value of the total supply value of the tax invoice for each seller, by pretending that he/she supplied goods to NN, etc.

B) On January 10, 201, around 25, the Defendant filed a return on the scheduled value-added tax base for the second period in 201 with the said Silor Tax Office, and the Defendant submitted the Silor Tax Office a false entry of the aggregate of KRW 712,047,272 out of the total value of supply in the list of the total tax invoices by seller, by pretending that he/she supplied goods to BN, etc., notwithstanding that he/she did not supply goods to B.

C) On January 27, 2012, the Defendant reported the establishment of the value-added tax for the second period of 201 to the said Silorian Tax Office, and the Defendant submitted the Silorian Tax Office by falsely stating the total value of KRW 794,146,468 out of the total value of supply in the tax invoice for each seller, by pretending that he/she supplied goods to BN, etc., notwithstanding that he/she did not supply goods to B.

2) Co., Ltd. C

A) On July 25, 2011, the Defendant filed a return on the confirmation of value-added tax for the first year of 201 with the said Silor Tax Office around July 25, 201, and submitted to the Silor Tax Office a false list of the total tax invoices by the seller of each sales office, indicating that C had supplied goods to A Q, etc., notwithstanding that it did not supply goods to A Q, etc., and submitted the false list of the total tax invoices by sales office.

B) On October 25, 2011, the Defendant filed a return on the scheduled value-added tax base for the second year of 201 with the said Market Tax Office, and submitted a false list of the total supply values of KRW 248,181,817 to the Market Tax Office, deeming that C had supplied goods to AR, etc., notwithstanding that C did not supply goods to AR, etc., by means of the supply of goods.

C) On January 25, 2012, the Defendant reported the establishment of the value-added tax at the end of 2011 on the said Market Tax Office, and submitted to the Market Tax Office a false entry of the total value of KRW 967,403,71 in the aggregate of the supply values in the aggregate of the total tax invoices by each seller, as if C did not supply goods to AR, etc., in spite of the supply of goods to AR, etc., the Defendant pretended to supply goods to AR, etc.

The defendant A, the representative of the defendant, committed the same offense as that described in paragraph (1) in connection with the defendant's business.

C. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the submission of a list of total tax invoices by Defendant C (2017Gohap866)

The defendant A, the representative of the defendant, committed the same offense as that described in paragraph (1) in connection with the defendant's business.

2. Relevant principles;

The former Value-Added Tax Act, amended by Act No. 9268, Jan. 1, 2010, introduced an electronic tax invoice system for the purpose of reducing excessive tax cooperation costs and tax administration costs related to value-added tax, and enhancing transparency in transactions. Accordingly, the current Value-Added Tax Act requires corporate entrepreneurs and individual entrepreneurs prescribed by Presidential Decree to issue electronic tax invoices and transmit the details of issuance to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service (Article 32(2) and (3). If an electronic tax invoice is issued or issued and the details of issuance are transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by no later than 11th of the month following the end of the taxable period in which the relevant goods or services are supplied, it is difficult to submit a list of total tax invoices by seller (Article 54(2)). Also, the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides that the list of total tax invoices by seller and by seller, as stated in attached Form 1, may not be deemed to be submitted (Article 54(2)).

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the total amount of the tax invoices and supply values on the list of the total tax invoices by customer on each of the above facts charged submitted by Defendant A to the competent tax office for the return of value-added tax is based on the tax invoices issued falsely to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service as stated in the facts constituting the crime. All of the tax invoices issued by Defendant A are related to the portion of the electronic tax invoices issued, and the details of issuance are transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service under the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., the list of individual suppliers by customer, including right 24, 27, 31, 35, 44, 47, 21, 21, 21, 207, 2017, 153, 159, 160, 165, etc.

B. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, where the part concerning the issuance of electronic tax invoices among the supply values entered in the list of the total tax invoices by customer submitted by Defendant A is transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, it cannot be deemed that the submission of a false list of the total tax invoices by customer under the Value-Added Tax Act, separately from the issuance of false

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as Defendant A is found guilty of a crime in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice) under Article 2017Da356 of the said facts charged,

C. Next, in the case of Defendant B and C, Defendant A, the representative of the above Defendants, committed a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the premise that the Defendants committed a violation against the above Defendants’ duties. For the foregoing reason, Defendant A acquitted Defendant B on the act of submitting a list of total tax invoices by customer, and this part of the charges against Defendant B and C constitutes also a case where the facts charged against Defendant B and C are not committed a crime. Accordingly, this part of the charges are deemed not guilty under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the verdict of innocence is announced in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act

Judges

The senior judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Shin Sung-sung

Judges Kim Gin-ho

Note tin

1) The above Defendants’ issuance of electronic tax invoices among the list of total tax invoices by customer submitted to the competent tax office shall be governed by the Value-Added Tax Act.

D. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall pronounce innocence only with the transmission of the particulars of the issuance (not guilty with respect to Defendant A), and the specific contents

I explained in the part of "not guilty".

2) Examination of evidence without examining changes in indictments to the extent that the indictments charged by the prosecutor do not disadvantage the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense

Some correction or correction was made according to the facts obtained through the process.

3) In the indictment, although the sum of the supply values in this part is stated as '845,246,468 won', the sum of the supply values in this part is stated as '84,246,468 won, the sum of the tax invoices by each seller

According to the evidence No. 356 No. 1, 31, 51, 148, it appears that this is a clear clerical error of "85,246,468," and the part not guilty.

As seen, the portion of KRW 794,146,468 out of the aggregate of the supply values is not guilty. As such, the remainder of KRW 61,100,000 is subject to criminal facts.

re-assign.

(d) Lowest limit of fines: 8,769,934,325 won (total amount of supply value, etc.) ¡¿ 10 percent (tax rate of value-added tax) ¡¿ 2 ¡¿ 1/2 (Discretionary) and forest below original unit;

The upper limit of fines: 8,769,934,325 won (total amount of supply value, etc.) ¡¿ 10 percent (value-added tax rate) ¡¿ 5 ¡¿ 1/2 (Discretionary mitigation) and forest below original unit.

5) The former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) applies, and the upper limit of imprisonment shall be 15 years.

6) Lowest limit of fines: 3,554,971,500 won (total amount of supply value, etc.) ¡¿ 10 percent (rate of value-added tax) ¡¿ 2x 1/2 (Discretionary) and forest below original unit;

The upper limit of fines: 3,54,971,50 won (total amount of supply value, etc.) ¡¿ 10 percent (value-added tax rate) ¡¿ 5 ¡¿ 1/2 (Discretionary reduction) and forest below original unit.

7) 5,467,278,737 won (total amount of supply value, etc.) ¡¿ 10 percent (value-added tax rate) ¡¿ 3 or less than original unit.

8) 3,302,655,58 won (total amount of supply value, etc.) ¡¿ 10 percent (value-added tax rate) ¡¿ 3 or less than won;

9) As examined in the above part of the "Judgment on the argument of the defendant A and his defense counsel", the defendant A shall calculate the amount of taxes by seller by false seller.

The above argument is asserted that the submission of the list of total members was not involved in the same transaction, which is first of all, legal principles.

In addition to issuance of false tax invoices, a list of total tax invoices by customer under the Value-Added Tax Act was submitted by entering it falsely.

Since the above argument is premised on the fact that it falls under a case where evaluation can be conducted, that is, a case where the above argument does not fall under the above one.

, in addition to the issuance of a gold account statement, it may not be deemed that a list of total tax invoices by customer by customer was submitted by false entry;

one argument shall be determined as follows.