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

The defendant was the representative director of building B, corporation D, and corporation in subparagraph C, at the time of harmony;

1. On or around December 10, 2013, the fact at the office D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “D”) issues false tax invoices worth KRW 754,943,750 in total, as shown in the attached Table No. 1-7, from the time of issuing a false tax invoice stating the supply price of KRW 149,480,00, as if they were supplied to E Co., Ltd., even though there was no supply of goods or services to E Co., Ltd., from the time when they were supplied, until January 6, 2014;

2. Around December 10, 2013, the fact at the office of the said Co., Ltd. (D) was issued a false tax invoice of KRW 749,743,300 in total, as shown in attached Table 8-12, from that time until January 6, 2014, including receipt of a false tax invoice of KRW 280,00,00, as if it had not been supplied with goods or services from F Co., Ltd., without being supplied with such goods or services from F Co., Ltd. (F).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Supplementary protocol;

1. Value-added tax return and electronic tax invoice;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on the written accusation;

1. Relevant Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each case concerning the crime;

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. Issuing and receiving a false tax invoice for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is not only likely to obstruct the legitimate exercise of the State’s right to tax collection, but also requires strict punishment as a serious crime that impairs the sound order of commercial transactions.

The normal defendant favorable to the defendant appears to reflect each of the crimes of this case, and the defendant is not issued or issued a false tax invoice for the purpose of evading tax.