logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2014.12.17 2014노421
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of violation of Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) is a newly established provision to punish the act of receiving and receiving a tax invoice without real transactions, namely, Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, by embodying the grounds for the aggravation of “for profit-making purpose” and “the total amount of supplied values, etc.,” and it is difficult to view that there was a “for profit-making purpose” under Article 8-2(1) of the Special Crimes Act solely on the ground that the evasion of value-added tax was merely the basic constituent elements of the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is unlawful.

B. Even if the facts charged in the instant case of unfair sentencing are found guilty, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three years of imprisonment with prison labor for two years, a fine of KRW 1,620,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Profit-making purpose” as stipulated in Article 8-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Determination of misunderstanding of Facts and misunderstanding of legal principles refers to the purpose of widely obtaining economic benefits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do13342, Feb. 11, 2010; 2010Do7289, Nov. 11, 2010); and the purpose of obtaining unfair refund or deduction of value-added tax by submitting a false list of tax invoices by seller.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5758 Decided September 24, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the records of this case, the Defendant, in collusion with C, issued false sales tax invoices on behalf of the so-called “explosion supplier” for the purpose of evading value-added tax, and issued false sales tax invoices from the superior company.

arrow