Supreme Court Recognizes Evidentiary Value of Tax Officer's Written Interrogation Report

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that statements written by tax officials conducting tax offense investigations are considered ‘administrative procedures’ and cannot be equated with statements prepared by investigative agencies.

While suspect interrogation statements prepared by prosecutors or police have limited evidentiary value if the party denies the content, tax officials are not investigative agencies, so even if the party denies the content in court, the statements may be recognized as evidence depending on the circumstances.

The Supreme Court’s 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) announced on the 3rd that it upheld the lower court’s ruling sentencing seafood distributor A and intermediary B, who were indicted for issuing false tax invoices under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, to two years in prison and a fine of 1.45 billion won.

A was indicted on charges of issuing false invoices as if a seafood distributor had supplied over 7.2 billion won worth of goods to restaurants in the metropolitan area in 2016, and fraudulently inflating the total amount on the sales invoice summary submitted to the government by over 7 billion won.

In the trial, the key issue was whether the evidentiary value of the tax offense suspect interrogation statement prepared by the tax official regarding A should be regarded as an interrogation statement prepared by an investigative agency or as a written statement recorded by a tax official.

Article 312, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that interrogation statements prepared by investigative agencies other than prosecutors can only be used as evidence if the defendant admits the content, while Article 313 of the same law states that written statements recorded by a third party can be recognized as evidence even if the defendant denies the content.

During the trial, the tax offense suspect interrogation statement prepared by the tax official was submitted as evidence of guilt, but the defendants argued, "Since it was prepared by an investigative agency, the statement has no evidentiary value if the defendant denies the content."

The first and second trials recognized the evidentiary value of the tax offense suspect interrogation statements prepared by the tax officials submitted as evidence of guilt and sentenced A to two years in prison and a fine of 1.45 billion won.

The Supreme Court ruled, "Under current laws, tax offense investigations are administrative procedures," and "Even though the nature of the work is similar to investigative procedures and may lead to criminal procedures later, it cannot be regarded as part of criminal procedures unless there are special circumstances."

It added, "Statements written by tax officials recording the interrogation of suspects cannot be considered the same as statements prepared by investigative agencies such as prosecutors or judicial police officers," and "If the statement is made under a ‘special trustworthy state,’ its evidentiary value is recognized."

The ‘special trustworthy state’ refers to cases where, at the time of preparing the statement, there is almost no possibility of false involvement in the statement content or document preparation, and there are specific and external circumstances guaranteeing the credibility and voluntariness of the statement.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that when judging the special trustworthy state, it is necessary to consider whether the essential content of various procedural regulations specified in laws related to tax offense investigations has been violated.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.