A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who runs the wholesale business of automobile goods under the trade name of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “C”.

A person who is obligated to receive a tax invoice pursuant to the added-value-added tax-related Acts shall not be issued a tax invoice for the fixed amount of tax or receive a tax invoice containing false information.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was supplied goods equivalent to KRW 30,000,00 with the supply price of KRW 30,00,000 with the representative of the Dispute Resolution D, and did not receive tax invoices in collusion with the representative of the Dispute Resolution D, and the Defendant was not issued on 75 occasions from January 23, 2013 to March 31, 2015, such as the list of crimes in attached Table 75 as in the list of crimes, even if he was supplied goods equivalent to the total supply price of KRW 98,950,072 with the total supply price from nine companies, such as the Dispute Resolution D, etc. from January 23, 2013 to March 31, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written accusation;

1. Reporting on the conclusion of investigations related to trading order;

1. A statement of purchase of non-data;

1. A certificate of deposit without a passbook;

1. D Trading details, F Trading details, G Trading details, H Trading details, I Trading details, J Trading details, application of laws and regulations on K Trading details;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, Article 10 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the selection of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Crimes committed by the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under the suspended sentence are likely to cause confusion in the order of taxes, make it difficult for the State to make the finances difficult, and bring about the hand-over of the tax payment to the people who are faithfully liable for tax payment.

However, the defendant is in depth against the defendant when committing the crime of this case.

The Defendant has been running a business for a long time, and has reached this case. The Defendant is the most liable for the livelihood of his wife and his child.

The main figures of the defendant want to be the wife of the defendant.

A defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime.