(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2014고합464

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2014고합464

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment of one year and six months and fine of 1,900,000,000 won, Defendant B’s imprisonment of two years and six months and fine of 3,80,000,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) with the main business of manufacturing computers and peripheral devices; Defendant B, a partner of the same business, operated G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”); and H is a person who mainly runs the same business (hereinafter referred to as “I”).

No person shall submit to the Government the sales and purchase tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with goods or services, stating it falsely.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal Defendants and H concluded a contract for the supply of goods with the J (hereinafter “J”) that is the company that is the company that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party that is the party

Since then, Defendant B and H made a contract with the J for the purchase of goods by pretending that the LETV was actually traded by G and I, and H wired the amount equivalent to 10% of the price of goods as if the goods were supplied from G under the said purchase agency contract to J as down payment. Defendant B received as advance payment an amount equivalent to 90% of the price of goods under the contract for the supply of goods in favor of the actual delivery of the goods. Defendant A shared the role of the F in receipt or issuance of a tax invoice in the name of F as if the F he operated was supplied with LETV and re-saleed to G.

Accordingly, Defendant A around January 25, 2013 and January 25, 2014.

참조조문

-부가가치세법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.12.07 2016나312965

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.02.05 2017고합194

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.02.05 2017고합194 (1)

-대구지방법원 2015.09.24 2015나1510

-수원지방법원 2020.01.10 2019노6208