Defendant

The grandchildren, the lowest court (public prosecution), the subordinate court (public trial)

Attorney Voluntary Mobilization

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and a fine of 80,000,000 won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

[2012 Highest 6027]

1. Forgery of private documents and the display of private documents;

On January 1, 2010, the Defendant received a request from Nonindicted 1, the representative director of Nonindicted 2-liability company located in Gunsan-si ( Address 1 omitted), who was asked by Nonindicted 1 to rescue and deliver a tax invoice to Nonindicted 1 by forging it.

On January 20, 2010, the Defendant: (a) manufactured the business name plates and seals of the ○ Industry (Representative Non-Indicted 3) located in Chungcheongnamcheon-si ( Address 2 omitted); (b) affixed the seal and the business name cards to the supplier column of the tax invoice site; (c) affixed the seal and the business name cards to the supplier column of the tax invoice site; (d) on October 8, 2009 in the item column; (b) on October 8, 2009; (c) on the item column, Non-Indicted 2; (d) on the iron sheet; (d) on the item column; (e) on the iron sheet; (e) KRW 145,216,00 in the item column; (e) on the aggregate column; and (e) KRW 14,521,60 in the tax amount column; and (e) on the aggregate amount column 159,737,600 in the name of ○ Industries; and (e) issued the said tax invoice to Nonindicted Company 12 at that time thereafter.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant supplied the goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act at the same time and place as the above “1”, the Defendant issued 12 copies of the tax invoice in the aggregate amount of KRW 1,537,76,000 as shown in the attached Table 1, such as the issuance of a tax invoice in the manner that the above ○○ industry supplied Nonindicted Co. 2 with the iron plate 145,216,000 on October 18, 209 to the said Nonindicted Co. 1, as shown in the attached Table 1.

[2013 Highest 2585]

1. Forgery of private documents and the display of private documents;

On January 1, 2010, the Defendant received a request from Nonindicted 1, the representative director of Nonindicted 2-liability company located in Gunsan-si ( Address 1 omitted), who was asked by Nonindicted 1 to rescue and deliver a tax invoice to Nonindicted 1 by forging it.

On January 20, 2010, the Defendant manufactured the business name and seal of the △△ Industry (Representative Non-Indicted 4) located in the △△△ Industry ( Address 3 omitted) located in the Seosung City on a commercial paper, and affixed the above business name and seal to the supplier column of the tax invoice site. On the same day, in Non-Indicted 1’s vehicle parked in the same page, the Defendant: “Non-Indicted 5 Co., Ltd.; “136,50,000 won”; “13,650,000 won” in the tax amount column; “13,650,000 won” in the tax amount column; and “150,150,000 won” in the aggregate column; and “150,150,000 won” in the tax amount column, the Defendant issued the above tax invoice to the supplier column of the tax invoice site as if he had forged the tax invoice, which is a private document under the name of △△ Industry, and subsequently, issued the above tax invoice to 111.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

On January 20, 2010, the Defendant: (a) within Nonindicted Party 1’s vehicle parked on the snife of the Slife of Slife on the Slife of Slife, and even though there was no fact that he supplied goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, the Defendant issued to Nonindicted Company 2 a copy of the tax invoice indicating as if the said △△ industry supplied goods or services in an amount equivalent to KRW 136,50,000 on October 5, 2009, as shown in the attached Table 2, including the issuance of a tax invoice of KRW 1,039,40,000 to the said Nonindicted Company 1.

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Entry of the defendant in the protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 4

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 6

1. A written accusation;

1. A written accusation;

1. A copy of each tax invoice;

The defendant and his defense counsel argued that the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document is not established after being issued a tax invoice with the knowledge of the forgery of the non-indicted 1. However, according to the defendant's statement in each prosecutor's office's interrogation protocol and the statement of Non-indicted 1 in the police's statement about the non-indicted 1 against the defendant, the non-indicted 1 is aware of the forgery of the tax invoice, and the defendant knew that the non-indicted 1 was forged, but the non-indicted 1 was aware of the forgery of the tax invoice. In light of this, the non-indicted 1 seems to have known of the forgery of the tax invoice, and the issuance of the falsified tax invoice to non-indicted 1 that the defendant knew of such circumstance is the crime of uttering of the above investigation document.

The defendant and his defense counsel argued that the act of delivering forged tax invoices to non-indicted 1 does not constitute an element of a crime under Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but where the tax invoices are issued in the name of a third party without delegation or permission from the third party, the third party cannot be deemed to be the person who issued the tax invoices, and the person who forged the tax invoices shall be deemed to be the person who issued the tax invoices. If the person who forged the tax invoices did not actually supply goods or services to the person to whom the tax invoices are issued, it shall be deemed to be the "person who does not supply goods or services" under Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Therefore, insofar as the defendant did not supply the goods or services to the non-indicted 1, and issued the forged tax invoices, it shall be deemed to be the "person who did not supply goods or services" under Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the defendant and his defense counsel cited by the defendant and the defendant, and the defendant did not deliver the goods to the third party by using his business registration, etc.

In addition, Article 10(1) and (2)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides for punishment for cases where a person liable to prepare and issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act issues a tax invoice different from the fact, and provides for the issuance of a false tax invoice. Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides for punishment for cases where a person liable to prepare and issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act issues a tax invoice without the supply of goods or services. Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides for punishment for cases where a person liable to issue a tax invoice without the supply of goods or services, the “issuance” of Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides for the issuance of a tax invoice under the name of another person. The act of forged and issued a tax invoice under the name of another person also includes “issuance” of Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. In addition, as long as the defendant prepares and issued a tax invoice to Nonindicted Party 1, the other party does not constitute the issuance of the tax invoice.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 231 of the Criminal Code, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Code, and Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

1. Selection of punishment;

The crime of forging each private document and the crime of uttering of documentary evidence shall be punished by imprisonment.

Crimes of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be concurrently punished by imprisonment and fines (Article 10 (5) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act).

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38(1)2 (limited to imprisonment), Article 20 (limited to fine) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 38(1)3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (limited to imprisonment, taking into account all the circumstances, including the fact that Nonindicted 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor, and some of the Defendant was led to a confession, the execution of the sentence shall be suspended only when imprisonment is imprisonment with labor).

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Attachment Offense List omitted]

Judges Lee J-young