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

From Apr. 10, 2003 to Jan. 31, 2013, the Defendant operated “F” under the name of the Defendant, and the household sales store of “G” in the same place from February 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 under the name of H, the Defendant’s wife.

1. A violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Issuance of Tax Invoice) (hereinafter “Non-issuance of Tax Invoice”) provides F and G with households equivalent to KRW 32,727,273 in supply price to I (J) around January 10, 2012, the Defendant did not prepare and issue a tax invoice in total 849 times from January 10, 2012 to June 30, 2014, including the supply of households equivalent to KRW 3,148,049,909 in total, as indicated in Attached Table 1 (Non-issuance of Tax Invoice).

2. A violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (tax invoices) did not issue a tax invoice, even if a household equivalent to KRW 72,181,818 (L) was supplied from the above F and G, and around January 10, 2012 from January 10, 2012 to June 30, 2014, including the supply of a household equivalent to KRW 4,069,75,687 (tax invoices) in total, on 211 occasions, including the entry in the separate sheet 2 (tax invoices) from around January 10, 2012 to around June 30, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of M;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on the completion of investigations by individual entrepreneurs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 10 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the issuance of tax invoices), Article 10 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt of tax invoices), and the selection of imprisonment with labor for each case;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the crime of this case is detrimental to the transparency of tax, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the tax invoice issued and not received.