A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the nominal owner of the business of the Dju station located in Seosan City from July 1, 2012 to January 30, 2013.

On February 25, 2013, the Defendant conspired with E and submitted to the Government a list of total tax invoices by individual supplier, stating false facts as if he was supplied with goods or services equivalent to KRW 723,218,182, even though he was not supplied with goods or services by the F Company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment, etc. of reference materials);

1. Application of a written accusation, investigation report (F company G), value-added tax return, and statutes on the total tax invoice by buyer;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 30(1)3 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act are not aware that the defendant merely lent the name of business registration to E, the actual business owner, and that false tax invoices are received at the gas station, or that E did not know that he submitted the list of total tax invoices by customer on the basis of

Pursuant to the circumstances and experience rules, public invitation of two or more accomplices in conspiracy to jointly process a crime is not required under the law, but is sufficient if there is an implied communication with regard to the joint execution of the crime directly or indirectly between the accomplices who intend to jointly commit the crime. Even if there is no direct evidence thereof, it may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and experience rules. Joint execution of a crime by public invitation is possible not on the premise that all accomplices realize the requisite elements of the crime, but on the premise that they cooperate to strengthen the decision of the act. Whether it falls under this, the degree of understanding of the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, and the size of participation in the act.