beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (1) - Defendant 1 made a statement that there was an enemy’s revocation of orders for butane gas, electric materials, and household goods equivalent to KRW 210,000 from E operated by Defendant H as witness of the lower court. The Defendant is a stock company C (hereinafter “C”).
(B) the actual supply of the goods equivalent to KRW 210 million to the Company, and the due issuance of the tax invoice for it; and (2) the Company B (hereinafter “B”).
In light of the sales and transaction details, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the defendant actually supplied goods and received 285,789,860 won in total from B over five times from January 31, 2014 to April 30, 2014, and received 5 copies of the tax invoice. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant issued or received the above tax invoice without being actually supplied goods or services, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of an unfair sentencing sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of all the evidence in this case, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice as if he were to supply the goods or services equivalent to KRW 10.5 million, although there was no fact that the Defendant supplied the goods or services equivalent to KRW 10.5 million to B on July 2014. From August 8 to September 9, 2014, the Defendant received a false tax invoice of KRW 210 million, even though he did not have received the goods or services equivalent to KRW 20.1 million from C, and the Defendant received a false tax invoice of KRW 45,678,000 from B on September 30, 2014, even though he did not have received the goods or services equivalent to KRW 45,678,00,000.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.