However, the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

[criminal record] On January 15, 2016, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two-year imprisonment for the crime of embezzlement, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on the same day by the court of the same day; Defendant C was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one-year imprisonment for the crime of embezzlement; Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three-year imprisonment for the crime of embezzlement for the crime of embezzlement, etc. at the same court on the same day; Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three-year imprisonment for the crime of embezzlement

[Criminal facts]

1. Defendant A is the representative director of Defendant D Co., Ltd. and Defendant B is his employee, who committed a crime related to D Co., Ltd., which is an advertising agency for the advertisements of H and 101 Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.

A. No person related to the receipt of a false purchase tax invoice by Defendant A or B may receive a false purchase tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied with goods or services.

Nevertheless, on January 17, 2014, Defendant A and Defendant B conspired to receive a false invoice for tax purchase equivalent to KRW 360,000,000,000, in total, from that time until December 24, 2014, the fact at the office of the said D Co., Ltd. was issued in collusion, stating that they were supplied with goods or services in an amount equivalent to KRW 30,000,000 without being supplied with goods or services from Company I, and from that time, they were issued with a false invoice for tax purchase equivalent to KRW 360,00,000, in total, from that time until December 24, 2014.

(b) No person may submit to the Government a list of total tax invoices by seller under the Value-Added Tax Act by entering in falsity the list of total tax invoices by seller without being supplied with goods or services.

Nevertheless, Defendant A filed a preliminary return on value-added tax for the first period of January 2014 at the Sung-nam Tax Office located in 480, which wishes to correct Sung-nam City around April 25, 2014, and the fact is that Defendant A received goods or services from Company I.