logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.28 2018고합6
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment of 4 years and fine of 4.7 billion won, Defendant B’s imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months and fine of 4.7 billion won, Defendant C, and Defendant C.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

2018 Gohap 6,2018 Gohap 15,2018 Gohap 48

1. Defendants A and B in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act from January 1, 2013 to October 2017; Defendant C from January 1, 2013 to June 25, 2017; Defendant D from January 1, 2013 to May 1, 2017; Defendant E operates 89 used cars exporters, such as H, at the G office located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City from September 1, 2014 to May 2017.

The Defendants: (a) using the fact that the amount of value added tax imposed on used cars exporters is zero “0” tax rates; and (b) the amount of purchase tax can be refunded in full according to the deduction rate of the amount of waste resources purchased in recycling (9/109) and there is a high amount of value added tax to be refunded; (c) using the fact that there is a high amount of the purchase amount, the amount of purchase price on used cars and export on the export paper on the used cars sales contract in used cars sales contract, etc.; and (d) conspired to evade the refund of value added tax by any unlawful way that lowers the purchase amount on the export paper on

In order to conceal the fact of evading the value-added tax by distributing the refund of value-added tax, the Defendants stated that the Defendants run an exporting company of 89 used cars in the name of themselves, their family members, and branch members (G operator status No. 1, 1734-177 of the evidence record), but the Defendants appears to have overlapped entry between No. 31 and No. 82 (K) of the above “The present status ofG operator”. As such, among the above facts charged, the “89” portion in the above facts charged seems to be a clerical error of “8.”

(3) According to the evidence of the court below, the defendant 1 and the plaintiff 40 used cars export company under the name of the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 40 used cars export company under the name of the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 40 used cars export company under the name of the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 40 used cars in the name of the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 21 of L (H), M, M, N, P, P, P, Q, R, TR, T, U, V, X, X, Y, Z, Z, Z, Y, Z, Z, Z, BM, BN, BO, BO, BP, BP, BP, B, B, B, and 40 used cars.

arrow