Open Decision Ledger · Economic crime
Adding together the supply amounts of issuing and receiving a false tax invoice
Supreme Court, Feb. 13, 2020, 2019Do12842 (judgment)
Case name: 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)·조세범처벌법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a defendant, acting as a business supplying goods or services, issues a false tax invoice and, as a different and separate business, receives that same invoice without any supply being made to it, must the supply amounts of both roles be added together in computing the 'total supply amount' that sets the aggravated penalty under Article 8-2(1) and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes?
Holding
Yes, they must be added. The value-added tax Act makes the taxpayer a business, requires registration for each place of business and adopts the credit-in-full-at-each-stage method, so a tax invoice is tax data for the issuing business and the receiving business alike; the aggravated penalty exists to establish the order of issuing and receiving invoices and so to realise taxation on a fair and equal basis, and the former Article 10(3)(i) of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Offences punishes both the issuer and the recipient. Because the court below read the meaning and computation of the 'total supply amount' wrongly, and the part it acquitted on that reading stood in a one-offence relationship with the part it convicted, the whole judgment was reversed and sent back to the Daegu High Court.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
피고인이 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 사업자로서 허위 세금계산서를 발급하는 한편, 다른 별개의 사업자로서 실제로는 재화나 용역을 공급받지 않으면서 위 허위 세금계산서를 발급받은 경우, 특정범죄가중법 제8조의2 제1항 각호 및 제2항에서 정한 공급가액 등의 합계액을 산정할 때에는 발급하는 사업자로서의 공급가액과 발급받는 사업자로서의 공급가액을 합산하는 것이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the defendant issues a false tax invoice as a business operator supplying goods or services while, as a separate and distinct business operator, receiving such false tax invoice without actually receiving any goods or services, it is reasonable, in calculating the total amount of supply value, etc. as defined in the subparagraphs of Article 8-2 (1) and Article 8-2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, to aggregate the supply value as the issuing business operator and the supply value as the receiving business operator.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이러한 부가가치세법 규정의 내용, 특정범죄가중법 제8조의2의 문언과 입법 취지, 구 조세범 처벌법 제10조 제3항 제1호가 세금계산서를 발급한 사람과 발급받은 사람을 모두 처벌하고 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면
Unofficial English translation
Taking into account the content of such provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act, the language and legislative purpose of Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, the fact that Article 10 (3) subparagraph 1 of the former Punishment of Tax Offenses Act punishes both the person issuing and the person receiving a tax invoice, and the like,
Factors
- 세금계산서는 이를 발급하는 사업자와 발급받는 사업자 모두에게 부가가치세 과세자료가 된다
- 특정범죄가중법 제8조의2의 문언과 입법 취지
- 구 조세범 처벌법 제10조 제3항 제1호가 세금계산서를 발급한 사람과 발급받은 사람을 모두 처벌하고 있는 점
- 피고인이 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 사업자로서 허위 세금계산서를 발급하는 한편, 다른 별개의 사업자로서 실제로는 재화나 용역을 공급받지 않으면서 위 허위 세금계산서를 발급받은 경우
Unofficial English translation
• A tax invoice serves as data for imposing value-added tax for both the business operator issuing it and the business operator receiving it
• The language and legislative purpose of Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes
• The fact that Article 10 (3) subparagraph 1 of the former Punishment of Tax Offenses Act punishes both the person issuing and the person receiving a tax invoice
• Where the defendant issues a false tax invoice as a business operator supplying goods or services while, as a separate and distinct business operator, receiving such false tax invoice without actually receiving any goods or services
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
특정범죄가중법 제8조의2 제1항 각호 및 제2항에서 정한 공급가액 등의 합계액을 산정할 때에는 발급하는 사업자로서의 공급가액과 발급받는 사업자로서의 공급가액을 합산하는 것이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
it is reasonable, in calculating the total amount of supply value, etc. as defined in the subparagraphs of Article 8-2 (1) and Article 8-2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, to aggregate the supply value as the issuing business operator and the supply value as the receiving business operator.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the issue side and the receipt side of one false tax invoice belong to different persons rather than to one defendant acting in two roles, may their supply amounts still be added together to cross the thresholds of Article 8-2?
The remand judgment of the Daegu High Court, once it recomputes the total supply amount with both sides added, will show how the threshold and sentence change in practice. Any amendment to Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes or to the version of Article 10(3) of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Offences in force requires this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reading frames the standard as an overall weighing of several considerations, while the independent reading frames it as a stated requirement that both supply values be counted, so the form of the standard is described differently.
공급가액 등의 합계액을 산정할 때에는 발급하는 사업자로서의 공급가액과 발급받는 사업자로서의 공급가액을 합산하는 것이 타당하다.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the holding as setting a new standard for computing the total supply amount, while the independent reading records no identifiable precedent relationship, so the precedent relation is read differently.
특정범죄가중법 제8조의2 제1항 각호 및 제2항에서 정한 공급가액 등의 합계액을 산정할 때에는 발급하는 사업자로서의 공급가액과 발급받는 사업자로서의 공급가액을 합산하는 것이 타당하다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the issue side and the receipt side of one false tax invoice belong to different persons rather than to one defendant acting in two roles, may their supply amounts still be added together to cross the thresholds of Article 8-2?” vs Independent “What criteria determine whether the issuer and recipient qualify as separate businesses for this aggregation rule?”
The primary reading asks whether the two sides of the invoice can be added when they belong to different persons, while the independent reading asks what criteria decide whether the issuer and recipient are separate businesses.
피고인이 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 사업자로서 허위 세금계산서를 발급하는 한편, 다른 별개의 사업자로서 실제로는 재화나 용역을 공급받지 않으면서 위 허위 세금계산서를 발급받은 경우, 특정범죄가중법 제8조의2 제1항 각호 및 제2항에서 정한 공급가액 등의 합계액을 산정할 때에는 발급하는 사업자로서의 공급가액과 발급받는 사업자로서의 공급가액을 합산하는 것이 타당하다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daegu High Court, in its judgment of 21 August 2019 (2019No277), treated the receipt side as the counterpart of an overlapping issue of one and the same false tax invoice among companies the defendant in substance controlled and operated. It held that the overlapping issue and receipt must not be added twice in computing the 'total supply amount' that sets the aggravated penalty, and so reasoned that the defendant was not guilty of receiving false tax invoices with a total supply amount of KRW 6,755,236,000, while convicting the defendant of the remaining part of the charge, which contained the corresponding issue side.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the meaning and the computation of the 'total supply amount' under Article 8-2(1) and (2), an error affecting the judgment, and that the prosecution's ground of appeal was well founded. Since the wrongly acquitted part stood in a one-offence relationship with the remaining part found guilty, and that part in turn shared one sentence with the convictions under the Act on the Punishment of Tax Offences as concurrent offences under the first clause of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the whole judgment had to be reversed. The judgment was reversed and the case sent back to the Daegu High Court by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- An invoice backed by an actual supply of goods or services, which is not a false tax invoice issued or received without such a supply.
- A defendant who held only the issuing role or only the receiving role, rather than issuing as one business and receiving as a different and separate business.
- Conduct without the purpose of gain, since the heavier penalty under Article 8-2 of the aggravated punishment Act reaches only a person who committed the former tax offence for the purpose of gain.
Record verification notes
Set the file against three points first: whether the same defendant acted in both roles as businesses separate from one another, whether no goods or services were actually supplied, and whether the offence was committed for the purpose of gain. Then confirm which version of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Offences applies, since the decision applied the former Article 10(3)(i) as it stood before the amendment by Act No. 16108 of 31 December 2018. Finally check how the receipt side the court below acquitted on relates to the convictions that carried one sentence, because that relationship decided the extent of the reversal.
From the official text
Points at issue
특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제8조의2에서 영리를 목적으로 구 조세범 처벌법 제10조 제3항의 죄를 범한 사람에 대하여 세금계산서에 기재된 ‘공급가액 등의 합계액’에 따라 가중처벌하는 규정을 별도로 마련한 취지 / 부가가치세법상 세금계산서는 이를 발급하는 사업자와 발급받는 사업자 모두에게 부가가치세 과세자료가 되는지 여부(적극) / 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 사업자로서 허위 세금계산서를 발급하는 한편, 다른 별개의 사업자로서 실제로는 재화나 용역을 공급받지 않으면서 위 허위 세금계산서를 발급받은 경우, 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제8조의2 제1항 각호 및 제2항에서 정한 ‘공급가액 등의 합계액’을 산정할 때에는 발급하는 사업자로서의 공급가액과 발급받는 사업자로서의 공급가액을 합산하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
The rationale for separately providing in Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes a provision that imposes aggravated punishment, based on the 'total amount of supply value, etc.' stated in the tax invoice, on a person who commits an offense under Article 10 (3) of the former Punishment of Tax Offenses Act for the purpose of gain / Whether a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act serves as data for imposing value-added tax for both the business operator issuing it and the business operator receiving it (affirmative) / Where a business operator supplying goods or services issues a false tax invoice while, as a separate and distinct business operator, receiving such false tax invoice without actually receiving any goods or services, whether, in calculating the 'total amount of supply value, etc.' as defined in the subparagraphs of Article 8-2 (1) and Article 8-2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, the supply value as the issuing business operator and the supply value as the receiving business operator must be aggregated (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 조세범 처벌법(2018. 12. 31. 법률 제16108호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제10조 제3항 제1호에 따르면, ‘재화 또는 용역을 공급하지 아니하거나 공급받지 아니하고 부가가치세법에 따른 세금계산서를 발급하거나 발급받은 행위’를 한 사람은 3년 이하의 징역 또는 그 세금계산서에 기재된 공급가액에 부가가치세의 세율을 적용하여 계산한 세액의 3배 이하에 상당하는 벌금에 처한다. 그런데 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘특정범죄가중법’이라고 한다) 제8조의2는 영리를 목적으로 구 조세범 처벌법 제10조 제3항의 죄를 범한 사람은 세금계산서에 기재된 공급가액 등을 합산하여 그 합계액이 50억 원 이상인 경우에는 3년 이상의 유기징역에 처하고, 합계액이 30억 원 이상 50억 원 미만인 경우에는 1년 이상의 유기징역에 처하며, 합계액에 부가가치세의 세율을 적용하여 계산한 세액의 2배 이상 5배 이하의 벌금을 병과한다고 규정하고 있다. 이러한 가중처벌 규정이 특정범죄가중법에 별도로 마련된 이유는 세금계산서 수수질서를 확립하여 궁극적으로 근거과세와 공평과세를 실현하기 위한 것이다. 한편 부가가치세법은 부가가치세의 납세의무자를 ‘사업자’로 정하고, 사업자는 사업장마다 사업자등록을 하도록 하며, 납부세액의 계산에 관하여는 이른바 전단계세액공제법을 채택하고 있으므로(제3조, 제8조 제1항, 제37조), 세금계산서는 이를 발급하는 사업자와 발급받는 사업자 모두에게 부가가치세 과세자료가 된다. 이러한 부가가치세법 규정의 내용, 특정범죄가중법 제8조의2의 문언과 입법 취지, 구 조세범 처벌법 제10조 제3항 제1호가 세금계산서를 발급한 사람과 발급받은 사람을 모두 처벌하고 있는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 사업자로서 허위 세금계산서를 발급하는 한편, 다른 별개의 사업자로서 실제로는 재화나 용역을 공급받지 않으면서 위 허위 세금계산서를 발급받은 경우, 특정범죄가중법 제8조의2 제1항 각호 및 제2항에서 정한 공급가액 등의 합계액을 산정할 때에는 발급하는 사업자로서의 공급가액과 발급받는 사업자로서의 공급가액을 합산하는 것이 타당하다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Provisions referred to
구 조세범 처벌법(2018. 12. 31. 법률 제16108호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제10조 제3항 제1호, 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제8조의2, 부가가치세법 제3조, 제8조 제1항, 제37조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger