조세범처벌법위반
The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.
1. The Defendant is a person who operated a mobile phone sales store under the trade name of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D shop 111.
I are people.
A. On July 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) filed a final return on value-added tax for the second term of February 2, 2013 at the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul tax office; and (b) did not receive goods or services equivalent to KRW 431,481,81,818 from “F”, the Defendant, despite the fact that he/she received goods or services equivalent to the said amount, prepared a list of total tax invoices by the purchaser and submitted it to the said tax office.
B. On July 22, 2013, the Defendant: (a) filed a final return on value-added tax for the second term of February 2013 at the Dongdaemun-gu tax office; and (b) filed a final return on the value-added tax for the second term of February 2, 2013 with the Defendant, despite the fact that he/she supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 520,268,629 to the G, the Defendant prepared a list of accounts by the seller, as if he/she supplied goods
2. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence examined in the instant case.
A. E and F are mobile phone sales stores (hereinafter “sales stores”), G are mobile phone opening agencies (hereinafter “open-line agencies”), and where a mobile phone is sold at an ordinary sales store, the mobile phone opening through the opening agency and the fees for the opening of a mobile phone are paid by the mobile carrier to the opening agency and the opening agency, respectively.
B. F entered into an entrustment contract with E as it is impossible to open a mobile phone through G due to internal circumstances with G during the trading period subject to reporting of value added tax for the second term of February 2013, 2013, and opened a mobile phone through G in the name of E.
(c)
(E) Defendant (E) issued a tax invoice to this G with respect to the fee for the opening of such cases as above, and received a tax invoice from F.
In full view of the above facts, the Defendant was provided by F with cell phone opening services from the Defendant, and G was provided by the Defendant.
It is reasonable to see that Defendant, G, F.