Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Defendant

A is the actual operator of Company B, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of Internet electronic commerce.

1. The defendant A was not supplied goods or services from the corporation D and E (business registration number F and representative G).

Nevertheless, around June 7, 2013, at the office B located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, the Defendant received a false tax invoice of 15,301,000 won, which is the false supply price of 15,301,000, which is the false supply price as if B was supplied with services from D Co., Ltd., and from that time until October 19, 2013, the Defendant issued 36 copies of the false tax invoice of 630,901,663 won total of supply value from D and E over 36 times as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

2. The Defendant B, a representative of the Defendant, was issued 36 copies of false tax invoices equivalent to KRW 630,901,663 in total in supply value of the Defendant’s business, as set forth in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the defendant A by the prosecution and the police;

1. A written accusation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (attached to judgments, such as issuance of falsified tax invoices by representatives of higher companies in B);

1. Defendant A: Defendant B corporation under Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (elective of fines): Articles 18 and 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (Defendant A);

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders;