beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.07.06 2017고단1647

조세범처벌법위반

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of ten million won.

However, the defendant A.

Reasons

Criminal facts

Defendant

A operates D in Gwangju Mine-gu from June 17, 2013 to August 31, 2014, and substantially operates the LAB from September 1, 2014, and Defendant B is a corporation established for household sales, etc.

1. Defendant A

A. Around October 30, 2013, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice related to D stores with D points of view to the supply of goods or services equivalent to KRW 20,510,000, in spite of the supply of goods or services to E, the Defendant issued one copy of the electronic tax invoice as if he/she supplied goods or services to E, and issued 51 copies of the electronic tax invoice of KRW 738,705,92, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table (1) from August 29, 2014 from that time.

B. On September 10, 2014, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice with respect to the LAB, the fact in the KAB office shall be that the LAB office is the LAB office.

L&C may not supply goods or services to L&C, but A. S.O.

B&C issued 613,09,974 won electronic tax invoice of KRW 613,09,974 from that time until June 30, 2015, including issuing a copy of an electronic tax invoice, as if the goods or services equivalent to KRW 6,818,181 were supplied to C, as well as a copy of an electronic tax invoice of KRW 613,09,974 from that time.

(c)

On July 22, 2014, the Defendant submitted a list of false sources of revenue invoices to G, through a tax accounting corporation F, a tax agent F, a tax agent, and filed a list of accounts for separate sources of revenue, which entered as if he/she supplied goods or services in G, even though he/she did not supply goods or services in G, the Defendant submitted a list of accounts for separate sources of revenue, which entered as if he/she supplied goods or services in amount to KRW 85,00,000 in value of supply.

2. The Defendant A, an employee of the Defendant, issued the electronic tax invoice 68 in a false manner, as described in paragraph 1-B.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the defendant A and the defendant B representative director H

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. A written accusation;

1. Each tax invoice;