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

From around 2009 to February 2016, the Defendant served as the representative of the mutual information and communications construction company, “E Co., Ltd.” in Article 206 of the 2nd floor of the D Building in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

No one shall receive any tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services pursuant to the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act.

1. On November 20, 2014, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice of KRW 419,780,000 from the supplier’s “F Co., Ltd.”, inasmuch as there was no fact that the Defendant received goods or services from “F Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “E”).

2. On November 28, 2014, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice of KRW 383,040,000 from the supplier’s “G Co., Ltd.”, even though there was no fact that the Defendant received goods or services from “G Co., Ltd.”.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the date of the second public trial, in the case);

1. Investigation report (to hear statements by a public official in charge of filing an accusation);

1. Application of statutes on the written accusation by the head of the Incheon Tax Office;

1. Relevant Article 10 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each crime;

1. former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the same Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on November 20, 2014 with heavy circumstances);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution (The following favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62(1)) of the Criminal Act (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15488, Apr. 1, 2008)

In full view of the facts stated in the statement, ② the Defendant stated to the effect that he issued tax invoices to the Defendant differently from the actual construction content at the time of tax investigation, the Defendant is “F.” as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment.