logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.31 2018고단2186
조세범처벌법위반등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. No person who violates the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall allow another person to register the businessman with the name of the latter, or allow another person to run the business by using the name of the latter for the purpose of evading taxes or evading compulsory execution;

Nevertheless, on June 2016, the Defendant would give KRW 2,00,000 per month to a person who has become aware of his name through B after a place in which he was not a policeman.

If the problem is later, the tax is not paid for five years, even if the problem is later.

In hearing the phrase “C”, even though the said person in name was aware that he/she requested the lending of his/her name for the purpose of tax evasion, he/she consented thereto, and thereafter, on July 4, 2016, at the Daejeon tax office located in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, the business entity “C” was opened, and the said person in name was allowed to run the business using the said business entity.

2. No person who violates the Electronic Financial Transactions Act shall transfer any access medium unless otherwise specifically provided for in any other Act;

On July 5, 2016, the Defendant opened a bank account (D) in the name of the Defendant and transferred passbooks, check cards, and OTP connected to the said account to the person who was in the name of the Defendant, upon the request of the person who was in the name of the Defendant, at a closed place.

3. No person who violates the telecommunications business Act shall intermediate any other person's communications or provide it for any other person's communications by using telecommunications services provided by the telecommunications business operator.

Nevertheless, on July 6, 2016, the Defendant: “Around July 6, 2016, the Defendant opened a mobile phone in the name of the Defendant’s name with the request and consented to the opening of the mobile phone in the name of the Defendant; and then, the Defendant’s opening of the mobile phone in the name of the Defendant.”

arrow