logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.08.13 2020고단1697
조세범처벌법위반
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates the “C” as a mechanical manufacturer in Kimhae-si B.

1. No act of issuing a tax invoice with false entries [Violation of Article 10 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act] shall be issued by a person liable to issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without issuing it or with false entries;

Nevertheless, around August 16, 2016, the Defendant issued a tax invoice stating an excessive amount of KRW 30,00,000 of the supply value, as if he supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 452,827,600 of the supply value to “stock company D”, and from that time, issued the tax invoice 19 times as shown in the separate sheet (1) from May 9, 2019, even if he supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 452,827,60 of the supply value to “stock company D”.

2. An act of not issuing a tax invoice [Violation of Article 10 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act] shall not be issued in collusion with a person liable to be issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act, but shall not be issued a tax invoice containing any false representation;

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant was supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 54,545,455 from “(StateE)E” on or around December 16, 2015, the Defendant did not obtain a tax invoice equivalent to the above amount in collusion with the representative F. of the said company.

3. Issuing a tax invoice without supplying goods or services [Violation of Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act], and without supplying or being supplied with goods or services, shall not be issued or issued with a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act;

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not provide goods or services at the C office around February 13, 2017, and the fact does not exist with respect to “stock company G”.

arrow