부가가치세법상 사실과 다른 세금계산서와 「조세범 처벌법」상 거래질서 문란행위의 차이점에 대한 연구

Breach of any duty with tax invoices are punished and regulated as ‘misrepresented tax invoices’ and ‘breach of transaction order’ based on Value-Added Tax Act. Value-Added Tax Act and Punishment of Tax Evader’s Act are each tax law and criminal law with differenced on ‘intent’, but it is difficult to distinguish between ‘misrepresented tax invoices’ and ‘breach of transaction order’；even the court does not have an explicit position on the subject. Such circumstances may cause ‘misrepresented tax invoices’ case without ‘intent’ to be punished as a ‘breach of tax order’. Therefore, ‘misrepresented tax invoices’ and ‘breach of transaction order’ should be differentiated and the discussion on ‘intent’ may help distinguish one from the other. In this study, ‘intent’ is interpreted based on each articles to discover the detailed meaning, and the criteria for ‘intent’ is scrutinized. Two hypotheses on intent which views it based on individual tax payers and on total tax revenue shall be discussed further with this study as the start. On the other hand, the Supreme Court decided that even though there is no influence on the tax payment of the value-added tax, it may be punished based on the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act article 10 paragraph 3, kindling the discussion on whether such punishment without the ‘intent to deduct additional input tax’ is possible. This study views that the Supreme Court did not deny the requirement for ’intent’ regarding the application of Punishment of Tax Evaders Act because there is the possibility that there was the intent to reduce corporate tax (omit sales). Thus, the ‘intent’ on the application of Punishment of Tax Evaders Act to tax invoices related crimes is still an important problem to be discussed.