However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a person who operates a optical cable facility construction company with a mutual name “D” in Southern-gu, Seoul.

No one shall issue or be issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying any goods or service.

On May 13, 2013, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice as if he/she supplied the F Company with the service equivalent to KRW 318,181,181,181 of the supply price to “F Company” operated by E, and issued a false tax invoice as if he/she supplied the F Company with the service equivalent to KRW 40,00,000 of the supply price at the same place on May 27, 2013.

Accordingly, the Defendant issued two false tax invoices equivalent to KRW 358,181,181 in total supply value.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Copy of the written investigation of suspects of violation of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to two copies of the electronic tax invoice;

1. Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

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

1. According to the sentencing guidelines for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter referred to as “the sentencing guidelines”) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant is recommended to be sentenced to one month or ten months of imprisonment (where the actual amount of profit is minor as a special mitigation factor). Taxes are the economic basis of state administration, taking into account the fact that there is a great need for the public interest to punish relevant crimes.

However, the defendant did not actually refund value-added tax, which is the object of the crime of this case, and the defendant committed the crime of this case.