Defendant

D, E, F, H, and A are engaged in a business attracting Internet clients, and they cannot issue a tax invoice because sub-business entities (containrs and business stores) that directly attracts Internet clients by paying cash with stolen goods, and in the case of cash, it cannot be issued a tax invoice because it is not a "goods or services". Therefore, in order to avoid the value-added tax pursuant to the sales, it is intended not to issue a tax invoice or to issue a tax invoice in excess of the information on the customers attracting them. On the other hand, in the case of a higher-tier enterprise, it is necessary to establish a gas firm and issue a tax invoice under the premise that it has transferred it to a signboard without purchasing data by attracting its customers without purchasing data, and the signboard company will issue a tax invoice in order to enable them to participate in the higher-tier business in a normal manner, and thereby, to evade the value-added tax in such a way that it discontinues its business and does not pay taxes for a short period after closing its business.

Accordingly, Defendant E and A established the “R (representative I), S (Representative B), “T (Representative U),” and “V (Representative W)” as a boming business entity. Defendant D had been in charge of the accounting and accounting of the aforementioned boming and signboards companies from around 2012 to June 30, 2013, and Defendant A had been in charge of the representative of the Internet entrance attraction chain (ju) X from around September 201 to around June 30, 201. Defendant H had been in charge of soliciting subordinate businesses (individual with with with or without permission) that directly attracts Internet customers from around 201 to act as a broker for Defendant E from around December 9, 201 to around June 30, 201, Defendant D had been in charge of the above boming and signboards companies’ accounting and accounting. From around September 2012 to around June 30, 2013.