2018Gohap 165 Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act

Delivery, etc.

A

Macap iron (prosecutions) and a trial in the form of transmission;

Law Firm Anonin Law, Attorney Kim Jong-soo

January 11, 2019

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and by a fine of 1,200,000,000 won. If the Defendant fails to pay the above fine, the Defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting 2,400,000 won into one day.

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

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

Criminal 1)

The defendant is the actual operator of C, a corporation established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of electronic equipment in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.

1. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant received six copies of the false purchase tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 5,629,404,00,00 in total, six times from around that time to March 31, 2015, respectively, as indicated in the attached Table 1, as shown in the following: (a) the Defendant received false purchase tax invoice in an amount equivalent to the value of KRW 1,246,50,000, as if he/she had not been supplied with goods or services by C from D, even though he/she had not been supplied with such goods or services by C, by means of the same method.

Accordingly, the Defendant received a tax invoice without being supplied goods or services for profit-making purposes.

2. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant issued six copies of false sales tax invoices worth KRW 5,772,361,047, each by the same method between around that time and around March 31, 2015, respectively, as indicated in the attached Table 2, as shown in the following: (a) as if C had not supplied goods or services to the EF store in spite of the fact that it supplied them; (b) as if it supplied them, the Defendant issued false sales tax invoices worth KRW 1,272,029,512 of the value of supply; and (c) from that time, until March 31, 2015.

Accordingly, the Defendant issued a tax invoice without supplying goods or services for profit-making purposes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Entry in the investigation report (electronic tax invoice filing report);

1. Each entry in the accusation, list of crimes, supplementary protocol, and electronic tax invoice 12 copies;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 8-2 (1) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (In general, pursuant to Article 8-2 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

Necessary concurrent imposition of fines)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (the grounds for sentencing below)

Articles 70(1) and (2) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Articles 62(1) and 62(2) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter the following grounds for sentencing has been considered as normal for more favorable reasons)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Reasons for sentencing;

[Determination of Punishment] Tax Crimes, False Tax Invoice under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, Type 2 (at least five billion won, less than 30 billion won, and less than 30 billion won)

[Special Mitigation Measures] Where there is no purpose of tax evasion or any result of tax evasion has not occurred;

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area, Imprisonment from June to June 2

2. The crime of this case’s determination of sentence is that the Defendant issued or received false tax invoices for profit-making purposes despite the fact that the Defendant was not actually supplied or supplied with goods or services. Such an act is disadvantageous to the following: (a) a serious criminal that seriously impedes the exercise of the State’s legitimate right to tax collection; (b) thereby promoting large-scale non-data transactions; (c) the issuance or receipt of false tax invoices is an act that substantially undermines corporate transparency in the accounting; and (d) the total value of tax invoices issued or issued by the Defendant exceeds KRW 11.4 billion.

However, there are favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake, has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, the period of detention of 1.2 billion won of the fine necessaryly and concurrently imposed on the defendant reaches 500 days, and the defendant seems not to have committed the instant crime for the purpose of evading tax, and other punishment such as the order shall be determined in consideration of the range of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee.

Judges of the presiding judge, Kim Jong-sung

Judges Cho Jeon-soo

Judges Secretary-General;

1) The trade name of the trading partner on the list of annexed crimes, as set out in the electronic tax invoice (No. 96-107 of the investigation record) is clearly set forth.

had been.