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

The defendant is the representative director of the solar power plant construction and construction business (ju)C established on March 3, 2009.

Around June 28, 2013, the Defendant issued seven false tax invoices equivalent to KRW 6,640,000,000, in total supply value to the KF and G Co., Ltd., as shown in the separate crime list, from around that time to November 16, 2013, as if he/she provided services to the KF, even though having traded with the KF, as if he/she provided services to the KF.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A H statement;

1. An accusation, a report on the closure of an investigation, or a report on the closure of an investigation (ju; F);

1. Seven copies of the tax invoice issued in falsity; and

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each registration statement of value-added tax (the scheduled first period in 2013, the first period in 2013, the second period in 2013, and the second period in 2013);

1. Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. [the scope of recommendations] and the reasons for the issuance of general tax invoices, etc. (type 3 (type 5 billion or more) (type 5 billion or more) and the special mitigation area (type 1 to 16 months): in a case where the two-stage increase (type 2) as a result of the combination of identical concurrence results in passive crimes by de facto pressure, etc., or there is no purpose of evading taxes or any result of tax evasion (the decision of sentence], in a case where the defendant is divided into and against the wrong facts, E requests that each of the above companies issue a tax invoice as a customer in order to raise the performance of construction orders of G companies, F which is a related company, and G companies, and the defendant, upon such request, caused each of the crimes of this case.