A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was a person who operated C in Gyeonggi-do Co., Ltd. in B.

1. Around July 25, 2008, the Defendant filed a list of total tax invoices by false seller, and submitted a list of total tax invoices with the same transaction amounting to KRW 387,080,50 in all four occasions, as shown in attached Table I, as if he supplied goods or services to D, even though he did not supply goods or services, despite the fact that he did not supply goods or services at the first additional tax base date in 2008, the Defendant filed a false list of total tax invoices in the form of 387,080,50,000 in the same way as shown in attached Table I.

2. On January 25, 2009, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by false seller: (a) while filing a list of total tax invoices by false seller in the same manner on two occasions as shown in Appendix II, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by the same transaction amounting to KRW 368,820,80,000 in total, as shown in Appendix II, even though he did not receive any goods or services by filing a list of value added taxes for the second period of time in 2008 in the infinite Eup Y-Eup and in the infinite, the Defendant, despite not being supplied with the goods or services, submitted the list of total tax invoices by false means, as shown in Appendix II.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a written accusation or a copy of the report on closing of business partners;

1. Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspended sentence is that each of the reports of this case by the defendant seems to result in the unrefluence of sales and purchase in the course of obtaining loans rather than tax evasion, that the defendant has no same criminal records, and that the defendant is guilty of the crime.