Whether the crime of forging a private document is established in relation to a person who has the authority to prepare a tax invoice (i.e., supplier) and a supplier of a tax invoice, and in cases where the supplier voluntarily enters another person in the column of a person who has

Article 231 of the Criminal Act; Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act; Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No1908 delivered on December 15, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The term “document forgery” means that a person without the authority to prepare a tax invoice prepares a document in the name of another person. This case’s tax invoice is an invoice that a value-added tax taxable entity should prepare and deliver to the person receiving the goods or services when supplying them (Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act), and the person having authority to prepare the tax invoice is a supplier who supplies the goods or services, and the trade name, name, and address of the person receiving the tax is merely an arbitrary entry, not an essential entry (Article 53(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act) and the trade name, name, and address of the person receiving the tax invoice is merely an arbitrary entry, not an essential entry, and it does not affect its validity, and the consent or cooperation of the person receiving the tax invoice is not required in preparing the tax invoice. In light of the above, the person receiving the tax invoice is merely a part of the document’s contents, and it is not a person preparing the tax invoice, and it cannot be deemed a crime of forging a private document in relation

For the same reason, it is reasonable for the court below to find the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case that the above non-indicted corporation committed a forgery of the tax invoice under the name of the non-indicted corporation by stating that the person who received the tax invoice was the non-indicted corporation without authority, and therefore it is not acceptable to accept the appeal that there

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

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)