조세범처벌법위반등
1. Defendant A’s imprisonment shall be imposed in 10 months, and the enforcement shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive.
80 hours of volunteer service;
Punishment of the crime
Defendant B was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a crime, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on May 9, 2013, and completed the execution of the sentence on the same day (the record of repeated crime). On December 18, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced one year to imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on August 19, 2016, and the judgment on August 26, 2016 became final and conclusive. On September 26, 2016, the court was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud, and the judgment on August 24, 2017 became final and conclusive on August 13, 2017, upon being sentenced to four months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Incheon District Court on April 13, 2017 (the record of repeated crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act) / [the crime of concurrent crime]
1. The Defendants conspired to commit the joint crime of the Defendants and registered the business in the name of “D” in the name of Defendant B, and Defendant A issued a false tax invoice in the name of “D” and sold it to five to five to five to divide the profits therefrom.
Defendant
B around September 16, 2014, a business operator registered as “D” in the name of “D” in the name of “D,” and Defendant A issued a tax invoice as if he sold KRW 25,005,00,000 in total 15 times as shown in the attached Table of Crimes, even though he/she had not supplied goods or services to F in the name of “D,” around September 23, 2014, although he/she had not supplied goods or services to F, and as if he/she sold KRW 590,546,091 in total, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (1).
2. Defendant A
A. Defendant B, who violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, appealed on June 5, 2018, on the facts constituting the crime in this part of this case, with the sentence of a fine of two million won on the same day in the Court Decision 2017 and 757.
In this part, the prosecution has imposed both penalties on the grounds of equity and penalties on Defendant A. However, the first instance court did not impose penalties on Defendant B on the ground that Defendant A paid 5 million won a fine for summary order to Defendant B for the payment by Defendant A.
In collusion with B, B registers a business in its name as “D.”