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

From March 2011 to October 25, 2014, the Defendant practically operated (ju) D engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic resin in Gyeonggi-si.

On July 23, 2011, the Defendant reported a value-added tax return on the Government Tax Secretary at the Government Tax Office at the Government-Si, 201, 201, the Defendant submitted to the Government Tax Office at the Government-Free on July 23, 2011, the total tax invoice of KRW 701,879,50,000 in total of supply value, stating as if he was supplied with goods or services from E, without being supplied with the goods or services from E, as if he was falsely entered in the list of total tax invoices from E, and submitted to the Government Tax Office at the same time four times from July 25, 2012 until the date of the return of value-added tax at the end of 1, 2012, when he was supplied with the goods or services, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a list of total tax invoices by seller (Evidence Nos. 4 through 9);

1. Article 10(3)3 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 11210, Jan. 26, 2012); Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Attached Table No. 1 or 3); Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Attached Table No. 4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Attached Table No. 4); the choice of imprisonment

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 Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (6-1 year) of the first category (6-1 year) including the receipt of a false tax invoice [1] [6-1 year] [1] ] Defendant shall be punished by a severe punishment in light of the fact that Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was punished by a fine on several occasions for the same crime, but the same crime as this case cannot be repeated because Defendant discontinued his/her business as he/she discontinued his/her crime.