Whether “the act of a person who supplies goods or services submits a list of total tax invoices by false customer to the Government” subject to the punishment under Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and “the act of a person who receives goods or services submits a list of total tax invoices by false customer to the Government” is in a pro rata relationship (negative)

Articles 30, 31, and 32 of the Criminal Act; Article 8-2 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm (LLC) LLC, Attorneys Lee Gi-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) Decision 2014No28 decided August 14, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a person who commits a crime under Article 10(3) and the former part of Article 10(4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act for profit-making purposes shall be punished as follows. Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that a person who submits a false list of tax invoices by seller under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be punished. If a person who supplies goods or services neither supplies nor provides any goods nor provides services, submits a false list of tax invoices by seller to the Government,” and “any person who submits a false list of tax invoices by seller to the Government,” cannot be deemed as having a hostile relation between “any other person who submits a false list of tax invoices by seller to the Government,” and “any person who submits a false list of tax invoices by seller to the Government” and “any person who submits a false list of tax invoices by seller to the Government, who is not eligible to participate in the act of a person who submits a false list of tax invoices by seller or service in accordance with the general provisions under the Criminal Act.

Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, such as the Defendant’s power and relationship with Nonindicted Party 1, the establishment of so-called signboard companies such as Nonindicted Company 2, etc., the establishment of so-called wide coal companies such as Nonindicted Company 3, etc., the details of sales between the company and the signboard companies, and the flow of money deposited by the Defendant in the bombing company. In full view of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the ground that the Defendant jointly participated in the crime of submitting a list of total tax invoices by false location

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the elements of a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)