beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.05.31 2016노130

조세범처벌법위반

Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant's participation in the instant crime is sufficiently recognized in collusion with B.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged against the Defendant was a person who operates a wholesale store with the trade name of “F” on the Seoul Mapo-gu and 1st floor, and requested B to create a false transaction performance by passing the above F’s business registration certificate and passbook with the purpose of obtaining a loan from the bank. After consenting to this, B received a false tax invoice using a copy of the f’s business registration certificate and passbook, the Defendant issued or issued a false tax invoice by using the copy of the f’s business registration certificate and passbook, and accordingly, intended to report value added tax.

No person shall submit to the Government a list of total tax invoices by seller and by seller under the Value-Added Tax-Related Acts without supplying or receiving any goods or service.

B According to the foregoing public offering, around January 25, 2012, at the Mapo Tax Office located in Mapo-gu Seoul, filed a report on the value-added tax for F in 201 with respect to the second period from July 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011, “G” and two other companies, despite the fact that “G” supplied goods or services from July 1, 2011 to December 31, 201, notwithstanding the fact that there was no supply of goods or services, it submitted a false list of the total tax invoices for each seller, stating the supply amount of KRW 42,925,00,00 as shown in attached Table 1, and the fact that the tax official submitted a false list of the total amount of tax invoices for each seller from July 1, 201 to December 31, 2011, as if it received the supply of goods or services from “G” and 13 companies, as shown in attached Table 2.

Accordingly, the defendant and B conspired to make a false statement.