The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds for appeal and ex officio are determined.

1. The act of receiving false tax invoices for the same transaction and submitting a list of total tax invoices by purchaser of false sales should be separately calculated “supply price” which may be deemed as a result of each act separate from each other. When calculating the “total amount of supply price, etc.” which is the standard for aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”), it is reasonable to add up each “supply price, etc.” separately calculated as above (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1054, Sept. 7, 2017). Provided, That the former Value-Added Tax Act amended by Act No. 9268, Dec. 26, 2008; and amended by Act No. 9268, Jan. 1, 2010; the former Value-Added Tax Act, which was effective, requires the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to issue the relevant preliminary return or final return of tax invoices for the purpose of reducing excessive tax cooperation costs and transparency in tax administration related to the value-added method.

The former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, which was amended on March 26, 2009 due to the introduction of the electronic tax invoice system (Article 54(2). In addition, the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, which was enforced on January 1, 2010, is the total amount of sales and purchase tax invoices by changing the form of a list of total tax invoices by sale and by seller.