2. Provided, That the defendant.

B B From July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, without being supplied goods or services from F at the office of the above stock company B, and received a false purchase tax invoice of KRW 919 million of the value of supply;

B. The above A.

false sales tax invoices of KRW 586 million in value, without supplying goods or services at the time and place of the subsection, shall be issued to G;

C. The above A.

A false sales tax invoice of KRW 13 million was issued without supplying goods or services to H at the time and place of the subsection.

2. Defendant B, as set forth in paragraph (1) above, had A, the actual representative director of the Defendant, issue the false sales tax invoice in Chapter 3 as the representative of the Defendant Company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the defendant A in the first trial record;

1. A protocol of suspect examination of the police officer regarding I;

1. Application of a written accusation, tax invoice statute;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 11-2 (4) 1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010);

(b) Defendant B: Articles 3 and 11-2 (4) 1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 4(2) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the sum of fines after separately setting the amounts for each crime of holding that the provisions on restricted aggravation in the concurrence of fines under Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act are not applied, but the provisions on

1. Defendant Company B: Fines of 500,000 won per crime* Three times = Total amount of 1.5 million won;

1. Defendant A who is subject to suspended execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the criminal conduct is recognized and reflected, and that there is no criminal record for the same kind of crime);

1. Defendant B, Inc.: It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act or more.