logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2018.08.24 2018노239
범인도피교사등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice), has already received a final and conclusive judgment of innocence as to the facts charged that the Defendant had issued or received false tax invoices in the name of H while substantially operating H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”), with respect to each tax invoice as stated in the separate sheet of crime attached to the lower judgment. The facts constituting the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance, etc. of false tax invoices) are the same as the factual basis.

Therefore, even though res judicata of the judgment that became final and conclusive as above is not in conflict with the above criminal facts, the court below convicted the defendant of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices) against the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment. Such judgment is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of

B. The Defendant, as to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice), has taken over K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) while operating H, and K actually purchased steel from H and sold it to the final customer, but traded in the form of delivering steel directly from H to the final customer.

In the process, the Defendant acquired N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) due to the need for credit transactions, and issued a tax invoice to N in the settlement of steel price to H, and K in fact sold steel purchased from N in the final customer.

As above, the court below judged that N's actual transactional relationship between H, N, and K was false and found guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices).

arrow