Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Adding both supply amounts where one person issues and receives false tax invoices
Supreme Court, Feb. 13, 2020, 2019Do13674 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person, as a business supplying goods or services, issues a false tax invoice and, as a separate business, receives that invoice without receiving any goods or services, must the supply amounts of both sides be added when the aggregate supply amount under Article 8-2(1) items and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes is computed?
Holding
Yes. A tax invoice is value-added tax material for both the business that issues it and the business that receives it, and Article 10(3)(i) of the former Tax Offender Punishment Act punishes the issuer and the recipient alike, so where the defendant both issues a false tax invoice as a supplying business and receives it as a separate business, the supply amounts of both sides must be added together. The receipt side corresponding to one and the same false tax invoice must not be stripped out of the aggregate supply amount, and the concurrent fine under Article 8-2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act is set on that aggregate, not on an aggregate with the receipt side left out.
Points at issue, verbatim
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
Where a business operator supplying goods or services issues a false tax invoice while, as a separate and distinct business operator, receiving the aforesaid false tax invoice without actually receiving any goods or services, whether, in calculating the 'total amount of supply value, etc.' as defined in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Article 8-2 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)
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below, insofar as it pertains to the defendant, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이러한 특정범죄가중법 제8조의2의 문언과 입법 취지, 부가가치세법 규정의 내용, 구 조세범 처벌법 제10조 제3항 제1호가 세금계산서를 발급한 사람과 발급받은 사람을 모두 처벌하고 있는 사정 등을 종합하여 보면
Unofficial English translation
Taking into consideration, in a comprehensive manner, the text and legislative purpose of Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes as set forth above, the contents of the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the circumstance that Article 10 (3) 1 of the former Punishment of Tax Offenses Act punishes both the person issuing the tax invoice and the person receiving it
Factors
- 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 둔 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
Unofficial English translation
• The purpose of the provision of Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, which provides for aggravated punishment, based on the 'total amount of supply value, etc.' stated in a tax invoice, of a person who commits the offense under Article 10 (3) of the former Punishment of Tax Offenses Act for the purpose of profit
• Whether a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act serves as VAT tax base data 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 the aforesaid false tax invoice without actually receiving any goods or services
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
동일한 1개의 허위 세금계산서를 발급한 부분에 대응하는 수취 부분이라 하여 공급가액 등의 합계액에서 제외시킬 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
the receipt portion corresponding to the portion in which the same single false tax invoice was issued should not be excluded from the total amount of supply value, etc.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a chain of false tax invoices passes through several businesses, must the supply amount written on each invoice be added cumulatively to the aggregate even though the same value moves only once?
A later decision on double counting the same value across a chain of false tax invoices, or a decision on how the not-guilty part and the guilty part relate after remand, would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 8-2 of the Aggravated Punishment Act or to Article 10(3) of the Tax Offender Punishment Act also calls for a fresh reading.
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 frames the aggregation rule as a holistic test, while the independent frames it as a set of requirements; the holding field is empty, so each reader relied on the issues and order text.
발급하는 사업자로서의 공급가액과 발급받는 사업자로서의 공급가액을 합산하여야 하는지 여부(적극)Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary treats the rule as a new standard for aggregation, while the independent could not confirm precedent status from the provided text.
동일한 1개의 허위 세금계산서를 발급한 부분에 대응하는 수취 부분이라 하여 공급가액 등의 합계액에서 제외시킬 것은 아니다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a chain of false tax invoices passes through several businesses, must the supply amount written on each invoice be added cumulatively to the aggregate even though the same value moves only once?” vs Independent “What criteria determine whether the issuer and recipient constitute separate businesses for this aggregation rule?”
The primary asks whether amounts must accumulate along a chain of several businesses, while the independent asks what criteria decide whether issuer and recipient are separate businesses.
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)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 4 September 2019 (2019No43), held that false tax invoices issued without any actual trade between the companies actually controlled and operated by the defendant (co-defendants 2 and 3) did not allow the supply amount on the issuing side and the supply amount on the receiving side of one and the same false tax invoice to be added together. On that basis it found the defendant not guilty of the receipt side corresponding to the false tax invoices issued between those companies, an aggregate supply amount of KRW 5,754,637,983, convicted the defendant on the remaining counts of violating the Aggravated Punishment Act by issuing false tax invoices, and set the range of the concurrent fine on the supply amount with that receipt side left out.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the supply amounts of false tax invoices the defendant issued or received must be added as they stand, and that the receipt side corresponding to one and the same false invoice must not be excluded from the aggregate supply amount. The court below had misread the meaning and computation of the aggregate supply amount under Article 8-2(1) and (2) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, an error affecting the judgment. Because the part found not guilty and the part found guilty stood in a one-offence relation, the whole of the judgment as to the defendant was reversed and remanded to the Daegu High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the same single business both issues and receives the false tax invoice, since the Court relied on the person acting as two separate businesses.
- A tax invoice issued or received against an actual supply of goods or services, which is outside the act punished by Article 10(3)(i) of the former Tax Offender Punishment Act.
- A false tax invoice governed by Article 10 of the Tax Offender Punishment Act as amended by Act No. 16108 on 31 December 2018, since the decision applied the earlier version.
Record verification notes
Set out every false tax invoice in the indictment with the supply amount written on its face, and mark for each whether the defendant stood on the issuing side, on the receiving side, or on both as separate businesses. Add back the receipt side the court below excluded, here KRW 5,754,637,983, and re-test the aggregate against the KRW 5 billion and KRW 3 billion thresholds in Article 8-2(1) and (2), since the fine range turns on the aggregate so computed. Keep the version of the Tax Offender Punishment Act in force on the date of each invoice.
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 둔 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 purpose of the provision of Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, which provides for aggravated punishment, based on the 'total amount of supply value, etc.' stated in a tax invoice, of a person who commits the offense under Article 10 (3) of the former Punishment of Tax Offenses Act for the purpose of profit / Whether a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act serves as VAT tax base data 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 the aforesaid false tax invoice without actually receiving any goods or services, whether, in calculating the 'total amount of supply value, etc.' as defined in each subparagraph of paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Article 8-2 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
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 대구고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below, insofar as it pertains to the defendant, is reversed, and this part of 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