The Defendant is a “person who operates a building,” which is a building contractor and a construction material seller in the Gu and America from August 5, 2014 to June 9, 2015.

No person shall issue any tax invoice under tax-related Acts without supplying goods or services.

On July 14, 2014, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice amounting to KRW 1,695,600,000,000, in total, from that time until June 9, 2015, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table, as if the Defendant supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 30,000,00 in value of supply, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant had not supplied goods or services to D, and issued a false tax invoice amounting to KRW 1,695,60,00 in total, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. An accusation - A written statement of completion of the investigation of value added taxes, details of tax offenses and written opinions on the processing thereof, a business operator’s new statement of business registration, C account transaction details, a report on confirmation of value added taxes, a list of electronic tax invoices, confirmations, respective transaction details, a written answer, and a statement of vindication;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (report on the reorganization of details of issuance of false tax invoices);

1. Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (or choice of imprisonment with prison labor) concerning the crime committed;

1. In light of the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, the fact that the defendant does not have the same criminal record as the defendant for the reasons for sentencing, etc., under the conditions favorable to the defendant, the crime of this case is likely to seriously disrupt tax order by making it difficult to impose and collect national taxes, thereby undermining the tax justice and sound commercial transaction order by bringing the burden to the general public, and thus, the nature of the crime is not good. In light of the period and scale, etc. of the crime of this case, the defendant’s liability is not easy, in light of the fact that the defendant was punished for a double-class crime, the fact that the defendant can have the history of punishment for a double-class crime