A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On June 5, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Labor Standards Act from the Suwon District Court’s horizontal Housing Site Board; and on August 10, 2018, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment

【Criminal Facts】

1. No person who issues a false sales tax invoice shall issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying any goods or services;

Nevertheless, on August 31, 2013, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice with regard to KRW 661,647,489 in total amount of four supply value as indicated in the separate crime list between the period from September 30, 2013 to September 30, 2013, inasmuch as “C” did not supply goods or services, such as contract cost, to “D”, as if “C” supplied contract cost, etc., the Defendant issued a false tax invoice with regard to KRW 17,631,90 in the “D” as if “C” supplied goods or services, etc.

2. Receipt of false purchase tax invoices;

(a) No person committed on August 31, 2013 shall be supplied with any goods or services, but shall be issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act.

Nevertheless, around August 31, 2013, the Defendant was issued a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 201,875,392 of the supply value by “C”, as if the “stock company E” did not receive any goods or services, including the contract cost, from “C”, as the said “C” was supplied with the contract cost, etc.

B. On September 30, 2013, the Defendant committed the crime of September 30, 2013: (a) around September 30, 2013, the Defendant was issued a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 356,620,901 of the supply value from “C”, as the said “stock company E” did not receive any goods or services, such as the contract cost, from “C”; and (b) as the said “C” did not receive any goods or services, such as the contract cost, from “C.”

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant;