However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for 3 years from the date of the conclusion of the judgment.

From August 2006 to March 1, 2014, the Defendant operated Co., Ltd. E with service and software development business as the type of business in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building 1219.

On October 25, 2009 and January 25, 2010, the Defendant reported the scheduled and finalized value-added tax return from the Geumcheon Tax Office located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Geumcheon-gu, to February 2009. In fact, the Defendant submitted to F false total tax invoice equivalent to KRW 284,842,751 out of the total supply value of KRW 317,161,00, which was the total supply value of KRW 317,161,00, which was not the supply of goods or services, including the submission of false total tax invoice by stating as if the goods or services equivalent to KRW 317,161,00 were supplied. From the above temporary date to July 25, 2012, the Defendant submitted false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 14,078,288,383, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. A list of total tax invoices by purchaser and seller:

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on account transactions;

1. Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; Article 10(3)3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 11210, Jan. 26, 2012); Article 11-2(4)3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is very large to 14 billion won in the amount of processed sales for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, and the other party’s tax order is disturbed, such as unfairly deducting input tax amounts, etc. In light of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that the other party is divided into tax benefits received from the other party, and there are circumstances to consider that the other party’s actual transaction would lead to the crime of this case at the end of seeking a method of avoiding the omission of the return of sales in the circumstances where the tax invoice is not issued.