except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a person who actually operates E in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu.

1. Receipt of false tax invoices;

A. On April 11, 2011, the Defendant issued a tax invoice indicating false supply price of 181,831,000 won to the above E office, although the Defendant did not supply goods or services to F, as if the supply price was supplied to F.

B. On May 2, 2011, the Defendant issued a tax invoice stating false facts as if the Defendant supplied waste Dongs equivalent to KRW 90,913,000 to the said E office, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant did not supply goods or services to G.

C. (1) On April 16, 2011, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice indicating that there was a false supply of a closed Dong equivalent to KRW 59,435,500 of the supply value from H, although the Defendant did not receive goods or services from H.

(2) On April 28, 2011, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice stating as if he were provided with the closed Dong equivalent to KRW 51,208,000 of the supply price from H, even though the Defendant did not receive any goods or services from H.

(3) On May 11, 2011, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice stating as if he were provided with the closed Dong equivalent to KRW 47,978,00,00 from the above H, even though the Defendant did not receive any goods or services from H.

(4) On May 18, 2011, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice stating as if he were provided with the closed Dong amounting to KRW 54,200,000 with the supply price of KRW 54,20,000, regardless of the fact that the Defendant had not received the goods or services from H.

(5) On May 27, 201, the Defendant did not receive any goods or services from H from the above E office, and the fact does not exist.