조세범처벌법위반
Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.
The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) from April 1, 2004 to April 1, 2013, the Defendant operated D Co., Ltd. with the purpose of manufacturing and constructing landscape lighting fixtures, etc. in the Gyeonggi-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
No person shall issue or receive any tax invoice under tax-related Acts for added value without supplying or receiving goods or services.
A. In around 14:00 on October 25, 2010, the Defendant issued one copy of the value-added tax invoice under the tax-related Acts stating the following: (a) the Defendant did not supply lighting, parts thereof, etc. to E; (b) the Defendant issued one copy of the value-added tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act stating the date of preparation, “No. 25, 2010”; (c) the supplier (owner); (d) the supplier (E); and (e) the supply price “150,000,000 won.”
B. At around 14:00 on December 10, 2010, the Defendant issued a copy of a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax-Related Act stating “E, December 10, 2010, although there was no fact that lighting and parts thereof were supplied to E,” “supplyer (State) D,” “E Company F,” “10,000,000 won” as of the date of preparation.
Judgment
Article 10(3)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 11210, Jan. 26, 2012; hereinafter the same) applies to each of the above crimes. The statute of limitations under Article 22 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is five years. This part of the public prosecution is deemed to have been instituted on February 23, 2016, when the statute of limitations expires because it is obvious that the public prosecution was instituted on February 23, 2016, when the record clearly shows that the statute of limitations has expired, and thus, the prosecution is acquitted pursuant to Article 326(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.