except that 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 actually operates "C", which is a textile wholesale company in the middle-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B1st floor.

1. On April 28, 2017, the Defendant received a false tax invoice: (a) around 2017, the Defendant received a false tax invoice stating that C was supplied with goods or services equivalent to KRW 10,000,000 of the supply price, even though C had not been supplied with goods or services from D; and (b) received a false tax invoice of KRW 448,063,370 in total from D and E’s supply price until December 29, 2017, as shown in attached Table 1, from that time until December 29, 2017.

2. On January 15, 2017, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice of 18 times in total, as shown in the attached Table 2, to F, G, and H, 618,406,650 won, including the issuance of a tax invoice stating as if C supplied goods or services equivalent to 53,836,000 won in supply price, although C did not have supplied goods or services to F, and from that time, until December 25, 2017, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice of 618,40,650 won in total, as shown in the attached Table 2.

3. Submission of false list of total tax invoices by customer.

A. A. Around July 24, 2017, the Defendant filed a final return on the value-added tax base for C- 1, 2017 in Jung-gu, Seoul, China-gu, 176, and submitted a false list of total tax invoices as if C received no supply of goods or services equivalent to KRW 74,070,320, the total value of supply from E.

B. On January 23, 2018, the Defendant filed the final return of value-added tax for the second period of 2017 at the C C in the Cranc 2017, and submitted the list of total tax invoices by false entry as if C received the supply of goods or services equivalent to the total value of KRW 73,650,000 from E, notwithstanding the fact that C received the supply of goods or services from E.

Summary of Evidence

1..