The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the crime of tax evasion provided for in Article 9(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 919, Jan. 1, 2010); “Fraud or other unlawful act” refers to an act that makes it possible to evade taxes, and a deceptive scheme that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes impossible or considerably difficult to do so by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2050, May 14, 1985; 99Do5191, Feb. 8, 2000). If a revised tax invoice is issued as if it falls under any of the grounds for the issuance of revised tax invoices as stipulated in the statutes to evade value-added tax, it constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful act” that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect value-added tax.

In addition, in cases where a person liable for tax payment commits or attempts to commit an unlawful act while recognizing that his/her act constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful act,” and recognizing that such act would result in tax evasion, the criminal intent of tax evasion is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do817, Jun. 29, 2006; 2010Do10968, Jun. 30, 201). In full view of the adopted evidence, the lower court issued a tax invoice by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) and its business partners that set the purchase price at a unit price and discount a certain amount from the purchase price; thus, it is justifiable for F to issue a tax invoice with the initial amount of the purchase price as the supply price; and even if the amount discounted from the purchase price does not constitute grounds for issuing the revised tax invoice, the Defendant issued the tax invoice as the total amount of the purchase price.