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

The defendant is a person who was the representative director of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ctel 601.

Despite the fact that no person issues or is issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied with or being supplied with goods or services, the Defendant received, on October 30, 2001, a tax invoice with the content that the Defendant is supplied with goods equivalent to KRW 54,500,000 from E at the above company office, and around November 30, 2001, at the same place, at the same time as, around the same date, and around November 30, 2001, from the same company, at the same place as, around December 31, 201, one tax invoice with the content that the Defendant is supplied with goods equivalent to KRW 139,00,000 from the same company, and from the same company, at the same place on December 31, 201, one tax invoice with the content that the Defendant is supplied with goods equivalent to KRW 56,500,000,

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement (main E representative) with respect to F;

1. The written statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. Investigation report (to telephone statements of public officials in charge of accusation), investigation report (to attach a list of total tax invoices);

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning investigation and surrender of suspected suspects in the course of data;

1. Article 11-2 (4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 7321 of Dec. 31, 2004) of the same Act and Article 11-2 (4) of the same Act concerning the punishment of the crime, and the selection of each sentence

2. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

4. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;