Background
The head of a company came under investigation on suspicion of exchanging false tax invoices without any actual transaction (violation of the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act). Where the amounts are large, the offense can attract aggravated punishment, making it a serious matter.
What Was at Stake
Our client operated two companies and had both "issued" and "received" the same tax invoices. Whether this was treated as two offenses or as a single act made a large difference to the scope of punishment.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun (attorney Kiwan Noh) applied the Supreme Court's doctrine that where the same person exchanges the same invoices as the representative of both companies, this is evaluated by ordinary social standards as a "single act" (an ideal concurrence or a comprehensive single offense). We further argued, given that our client had already been punished in a related matter, that additional punishment was unnecessary.
The investigating authorities accepted this and closed the matter with a non-indictment. The case shows that on the same facts the outcome can differ according to how the legal analysis frames "how many offenses" are involved. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and may differ.)