logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2013.06.11 2013고단495
조세범처벌법위반
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of eight months, and by a fine of three million won for the defendant limited liability company B.

except that this shall not apply.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who actually operates a limited liability company B, and the defendant limited liability company B is a corporation that is established for the purpose of delivery such as program of automation system of electronic equipment and automation of industrial machinery by wholesale and retail business.

1. Defendant A

(a) A person to be submitted to the Government of the total tax invoice by buyer under the Value-Added Tax Act shall not submit a false list of the total tax invoice by buyer;

Nevertheless, on July 25, 2012, the Defendant reported the value-added tax return for the first time in January 2012 on the Bapo Tax Office located in the Dongpo-si Alternative Zone B, the Defendant submitted a false list of the total tax invoice by stating the amount equivalent to KRW 1,302,500,000, even though the amount sold to Sung Il Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. by the limited company B is not more than KRW 50 million.

(b) No list of total tax invoices under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be submitted to the Government without being supplied with the goods or services related to the list of total tax invoices by customer;

Nevertheless, on July 25, 2012, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices, stating in falsity, as if he was supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 450,00,000, and KRW 1,010,000,000 from the East Industries Co., Ltd. even though he was not supplied goods or services by the East Industries Co., Ltd., which became a stock company.

2. As above, the Defendant limited liability company B was a corporation established for the purpose of supplying electronic equipment automation system program, industrial machinery automation, etc., and the Defendant’s employees submitted a list of total tax invoices by purchasing and selling places, which were falsely recorded in relation to the Defendant’s business at the aforementioned time and place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ 1.

arrow