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

The Defendant, from around 2004 to October 11, 2013, operated the said company as the representative director of C, a corporation established for the main purpose of ELD (LED) and surveillance camera manufacturing and selling business, etc. of ELD (LED) from around 2004 to October 1, 2013.

1. On November 11, 201, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice as if he/she supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 160,000,000 to the former operator, although he/she did not supply goods or services to the former operator of the new electric utility.

The Defendant, including that, from that time until April 5, 2012, issued 12 copies of the tax invoice consisting of the total amount of 1,216,218,500 won, such as the issuance of a false tax invoice (issuance of false tax invoice) in attached Form 12 times.

2. On November 30, 201, the Defendant received a false tax invoice as if he received the supply of goods or services equivalent to KRW 50,000,000 from the support system, even though there was no fact that he received goods or services from the support system (state) around November 30, 201.

The Defendant, including that, from that time until May 31, 2012, was issued 15 copies of the tax invoice consisting of the total supply value of 909,250,329 over 15 times, such as the submission of a false tax invoice (receipt of false tax invoice) in attached Form 2.

The Defendant, from May 201 to September 25, 2012, operated the said company as the representative director of the corporation E established for the main purpose of electric powering and luminous manufacturing business, real estate development business, etc. in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building 525 from May 201 to September 25, 2012.

1. Issuing a false tax invoice;

A. On December 30, 2011, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice as if the Defendant supplied F with goods or services equivalent to KRW 108,691,00 in value of supply, although there was no fact that the Defendant supplied goods or services to F.

B. The Defendant did not supply goods or services to G companies around December 30, 201.