2) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The defendant is the actual operator of D Co., Ltd. in Jinju City.

1. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice);

No one shall be issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied with goods or services for profit.

Nevertheless, around January 13, 2012, the Defendant was issued a false tax invoice of KRW 50,000,000 as the supply price of goods or services, although there was no fact that the Defendant received goods or services from the said D office.

As above, the Defendant, for profit-making purposes, received four copies of false tax invoices of KRW 3,341,986,348 from four purchase places, including Drara, Co., Ltd., as indicated in the list of offenses, including the following: (a) from January 13, 2012 to April 27, 2012.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

On April 25, 2012 and July 25, 2012, the Defendant filed a preliminary and final tax return on the value-added tax base for the first year of January 2012, 2012, the Defendant evaded the amount equivalent to KRW 334,198,634, value-added tax by fraud or other unlawful means by filing a false tax invoice stating the purchase amount equivalent to KRW 3,341,986,348.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of each prosecution against the accused (including the F substitute part);

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of F, G, H, and I;

1. E statements;

1. Protocol of examination of suspects of each violation (J, K);

1. Written accusation of the director of the Jinju Tax Office;

1. A copy of a report on investigation into value-added tax, a report on investigation into trade order, a copy of a report on investigation into value-added tax, and a copy of each tax invoice;

1. Each investigation report (documents A to be submitted by a suspect, list of crimes, grounds for judgment, replys without truth, progress of cases involving a purchaser, etc.);

[Defendant and his defense counsel acquired D Co., Ltd. from L and E entrusted by the Defendant, the representative director of D, around February 8, 2012. Around January 2012, the Defendant denied that there was no entry in the Defendant’s receipt of false tax invoices listed in Nos. 1 through Nos. 3 of the annexed crime list. However, the Defendant stated that there was no entry in the witness E’s consistent statement, F’s statement, F’s date of arrest and release, the occurrence of claims related to the purchase of tax-free petroleum between the Defendant and F, the process of acquiring D Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale status of oil around January 201, 202, the process that the false tax invoices listed in the annexed list Nos. 1 through 3 of the annexed crime list were prepared in the form of paper tax invoices, and that the Defendant stated to the effect that the date of issuance of the false tax invoices listed in the annexed list No. 2 was retroactively prepared from the prosecution’s fourth examination to the effect that the Defendant was fully involved in the operation of D Co.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 8-2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt of false tax invoices and comprehensive imposition of imprisonment and fines as necessary) and the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt of false tax invoices, and the selection of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Concurrent Crimes within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of the above two crimes to the imprisonment with labor prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoice)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Scope of Punishment] Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice): Tax Offenses, Receipt of False Tax Invoices, etc. under the Specific Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act, Type 1 (not less than three billion won, but less than five billion won)

-Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act: Tax crimes, general tax evasion, and Type 2 (the amount exceeding 300 million won, and less than 500 million won) / Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the issuance, etc. of false tax invoices): one year to two years (the main area).

- Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act: Imprisonment of eight months to one year (basic area)

[Scope of Corrected Recommendations] One year to two years (two years of imprisonment)

[Pronouncement Decision] Each of the instant crimes committed in the amount of one year of imprisonment, fine 70,000,000 won is the Defendant’s evasion of value-added tax by receiving false tax invoices although the Defendant was not actually supplied with goods or services, and submitting a false list of total tax invoices at the tax office in the course of filing the final return of value-added tax by submitting a false list of total tax invoices at the tax office. Such an act by the Defendant is not only hindering the legitimate exercise of the State’s right to tax collection, but also impairing the order of sound commercial transactions by encouraging so-called “free transaction”, and the sum of supply values of false tax invoices received by the Defendant reaches approximately three billion won, etc.

However, if the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same crime, or if the defendant does not pay a fine imposed concurrently by imprisonment, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant is confined in a long period of time, separate from the execution of imprisonment, and all the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, method of and circumstances after the crime, etc.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

In fact, the Defendant received four false tax invoices of KRW 1,635,527,272 from 31.5, to 30 June 30, 2012 for profit-making purposes by submitting a false tax invoice and a list of total tax invoices by seller equivalent to KRW 1,635,52,72, as shown in the attached list, for profit-making purposes, and the Defendant evaded the amount of value-added tax equivalent to KRW 1,635,525,72, by filing a final tax return on the value of value of KRW 1,635,527,272, which was issued from the distribution of large petroleum, at the Jinju Tax Office around July 25, 2012, when filing the final tax return on the value of value-added tax of KRW 1,635,527,272, which was issued from the distribution of large petroleum, by fraudulent or other unlawful means.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

H or M was issued the above Chapter 4 of the false tax invoice independently from the distribution of large petroleum, and there was no fact that the Defendant participated in it.

3. Determination

1) The following circumstances revealed in the process of the examination of the instant case: ① the Defendant acquired D from F as the representative director under the name of F, and led the management of D Co., Ltd.; ② H in charge of the business of D Co., Ltd. invested KRW 50,00,000 in D Co., Ltd. as security on April 2012; ② additional KRW 30,000,000,000, which was invested in D Co., Ltd. around May 13, 2012; ③ the Defendant’s investment in the above 80,000,000,000 won, which was launched by H and M Co., Ltd., Ltd. as its capital; ③ the Defendant’s investment in the above 80,000,000,000 won, which was first operated as its capital, went beyond H and M, and the Defendant appears to have not been able to receive any more than 20,000,000 won, including the changes in the name of H.

2) Ultimately, evidence, such as the list of total tax invoices by seller, submitted by the prosecutor on January 2012, 201, is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged. There is no other evidence to find the Defendant guilty of the above facts charged.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the court found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice) and the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Tax Evaders

Judge To call

Judges Il-il