beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who has engaged in export business in each and used car under the trade name of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C 609.
1. On May 25, 2011, the Defendant filed a final return on the value-added tax of the said D at the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul tax office in January 201, 201, on May 25, 201, on the following: (a) notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant had not received goods equivalent to KRW 55,363,637 from the purchase and sale of used cars (representativeF), the Defendant submitted a false list of the total amount of tax invoices by the purchaser as if he received the goods equivalent to the said amount, and submitted it to the said tax office.
2. On June 25, 2011, the Defendant filed a final return on the value-added tax of the said D at the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul tax office in Seoul Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, on June 25, 2011, with respect to the said D, the Defendant entered a false list of the total statement of the accounts for separate tax accounts at the said tax office, stating the following facts: (a) despite the fact that the Defendant had not received goods equivalent to KRW 128,363,637 from the sale of used cars (representativeF) and received goods equivalent to KRW 128,63,637 from the sale of cars; and (b) even if the Defendant had not received goods equivalent to
Judgment
1. The Defendant asserts that since F was actually purchasing 11 cars from the E used cars trading with its representative from the investigation stage to the present law, it is not submitted to the tax office by stating a false list of total tax invoices by the purchaser.
2. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence with probative value that makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest as the defendant's interest (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3951 Decided November 12, 2015).