logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.15 2015노3287
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Of the facts of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice), part of the facts of the crime concerning the case of "2014 Gohap711" as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the annual rate of No. 1. 2014 Gohap 711 as indicated in the judgment of the court below among the facts of the crime of "2014 Gohap 7111 as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter "No. 1.

1. Each transaction and serial number with the entries companies;

2. Each of the transactions with AC, AU, AV, AW, AX, BA, B, B, B, AD, B, B, AF, AO, B, and F among the described companies, and some of the transactions with AP and AB.

3. Each transaction with BK and H, and serial numbers, among the described companies.

4. Each transaction with BT, BK, AE, AF (State), and AA from among the described companies, and each part of the transaction with Q and AB.

5. Each transaction with AE and B and part of Q and BY, each transaction with H and I in paragraph 2, each transaction with H and I in paragraph 3, and No. 2.0 per annum of attached Table 2.0 (hereinafter “No. 2.”) in paragraph 3 of the judgment below

1. Since some of the transactions described in 14. or 19. are actually supplied or received with the goods, each part of the above transactions shall not constitute a crime of violation of Article 10.3. 1 or 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with respect to each of the above parts.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles that found all of the facts charged.

2) The Defendant voluntarily purchased one truck of 4.5 tons in the name of the Defendant (U, hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and entered AH’s company in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant would pay KRW 100,000 per month to the Defendant and pay the loan by installments.

As a result, V Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “V”) borrowed KRW 110 million from V to purchase the said vehicle.

In that sense, the instant vehicle was entered W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “W”) in order not to pay the installment of the loan promised by AH, and during that period, AH sent CO.

10,000 won in installments.

arrow