All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter the same) punish “the act of issuing or being issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with goods or services.”

This is to punish the act of receiving tax invoices without real transactions, thereby promoting the normalization of the order of receiving tax invoices.

(2) In light of the language, structure, legislative intent, etc. of Article 10(3) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, in cases where a revised tax invoice is issued and received, without supplying or receiving goods or services, and after issuing or receiving a processed tax invoice, and where a revised tax invoice is issued and received in the same manner as the former is cancelled, the act of issuing or receiving the revised tax invoice does not intend to issue or receive the processed tax invoice with the content of newly supplied or being supplied with the goods or services, but merely does not constitute a crime under Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, since the latter’s act of issuing or receiving the revised tax invoice does not constitute a crime under Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

2. The court below found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the case where a false tax invoice was issued and then the false tax invoice was cancelled is not a false tax invoice with the content of revoking the false tax invoice. As to the part of the facts charged in the instant case where a copy of the revised tax invoice with the value of supply as “-30 million won” was issued, the court below held the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the elements of Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act are not satisfied.