beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the representative of U.S. E in Ulsan-gun D Co., Ltd., Ltd., with the intent to obtain the deduction of the purchase tax amount, the Defendant made a false list of tax invoices by seller and received them at the tax office.
A. On January 26, 2014, the Defendant, at the foregoing E office, filed a final return on the tax invoice by seller by seller on January 26, 2014, and at the second time value added tax for E Co., Ltd. in 2013, the fact was, notwithstanding the fact that the goods were supplied from F, entered the total invoice by seller in falsehood 22,284,223,00 won in total, as if the goods were supplied by F were supplied by the goods from F, and submitted it to the tax office.
B. On April 25, 2014, the Defendant related to the list of total tax invoices by seller at the above E office on April 25, 2014, when filing a preliminary return of value-added tax for E Co., Ltd. at the first time in 2014, the Defendant entered the list of total tax invoices by seller in falsehood and submitted it to the tax office as if he received goods from G in total amount of KRW 12,745,295,000 from G, notwithstanding the fact that there was no supply of goods from G.
Accordingly, the defendant did not receive goods or services for profit-making purposes and submitted to the government a list of total tax invoices by seller on a total of 5,029,518,000 won.
2. As stated in the facts charged in this case, the person who submitted a list of total tax invoices as stated in the facts charged in this case by the defendant and his defense counsel is H as the actual operator of the company E (hereinafter “the company in this case”). The defendant only lent only the name of the representative director, and he did not participate in the crime in this case.
3. It is doubtful that the credibility of a confession made by the prosecution of the relevant legal principles is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession of the defendant is different from the legal statement.
(2) shall not be effective.