Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act where a goods supplier unders the tax base and amount of tax without issuing a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act;

If an entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act who supplied goods under the supply of goods under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act has underreported the tax base and tax amount of the value-added tax as if he did not deliver a tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act to the person who was supplied with the goods to the goods city and sold at a lower level than the actual sales amount,

Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court (80 Gohap161)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 20,000 won into one day.

The 30 days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

The gist of the defendant's grounds for appeal by state appointed defense counsel is that the defendant under the Value-Added Tax Act was evading 6,250,463 won of value-added tax by fraudulent means by underreporting the value-added tax on the sales amount from January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979. However, even if the business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act filed a preliminary return or final return, it cannot be said that he would not have evaded the tax by fraudulent or other unlawful means, even though he did not suffer disadvantages under the Value-Added Tax Act, so the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges and found the defendant guilty of the charges, which affected the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on "the case of tax evasion by fraudulent or other improper means" under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's private defense counsel, which affected the court below's decision that the defendant did not return the sales amount to 6,250 won of value-added tax, and thus, the defendant did not return the above sales amount.

Therefore, in full view of the provisions of Articles 16, 18, and 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the defendant's appeal ground and the first point of appeal of the private defense counsel are deemed as follows: (a) if he supplies the goods, he shall prepare a tax invoice stating the value of supply and deliver it to the person who receives the supply; (b) within 25 days after the scheduled return period of value-added tax (from January 1 to March 31, 1 to September 30), and (c) the tax base and amount of tax for each scheduled return period shall be reported within 16 days after the end of 7th of each taxable period (from January 1 to June 30, 197, to December 31, 200), and the tax base and amount of tax for the said goods shall be returned lawfully within 25 days after the expiration of 16th of each taxable period, and in view of the purport of this provision, if an entrepreneur who supplied the goods under the Value-Added Tax Act fails to deliver the tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Article 8(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act are applied to the so-called "the judgment of the defendant prior to the determination of unfair sentencing." However, Article 8 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is amended as Act No. 3280 on December 18, 1980 after the crime of this case, and Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person who commits a crime under Article 9(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be subject to aggravated punishment only when the amount of evaded tax is 20 million won or more per annum, and if the amount of evaded tax is 20 million won or less per annum, the judgment of the court below on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes should be punished under Article 9(1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders Act. Since the so-called "the judgment of the defendant's this case is the case to be reversed under Article 8(1) of the former Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

Criminal facts and evidence admitted by a member are the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited.

According to the so-called "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Act No. 2550, Feb. 24, 1973) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes before the amendment, Article 9 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Act No. 2550, Feb. 24, 197) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Act No. 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 9 (1) 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Crimes of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the time of trial. Since this is a case where a punishment is changed due to changes after the crime, Article 8 (2) and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders and Article 9 (1) 3 of the same Act shall be imposed upon the defendant within the prescribed amount of fine.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-jin (Presiding Judge)