logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.25 2016고합377
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor and fines of 350,000,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by fines of 1,000,000 won, respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the actual operator of F, whose main work is to supply building materials and short-heat construction interior in Daegu Northern-gu E, and Defendant B is the representative in the name of F.

1. Defendant A

(a) No person who violates the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall register his/her business by using another person's name for the purpose of evading taxes or evading compulsory execution;

Nevertheless, on December 26, 2012, the Defendant borrowed the name of B in the above F's business registration at the tax office located in 118, Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu-gu.

B. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) issued and received false tax invoices equivalent to KRW 3,467,982,00 in total, etc. for profit-making purposes, or submitted sales and total tax invoices on which false entries are entered:

1) No person who issues a false tax invoice (sale) may issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying any goods or services. Around April 26, 2013, the Defendant issued a tax invoice at the above F office; the Defendant does not receive a false tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act, even though he/she did not supply any goods or services to G company; the Defendant issued a tax invoice as if he/she supplied goods or services in an amount equivalent to KRW 9,500,000 of the value of supply; and from that time, issued 37 copies of the tax invoice equivalent to KRW 758,691,00 of the total value of supply over 37 occasions, as shown in the [Attachment List], from October 29, 2014, respectively, from that time until October 29, 2014.

Around January 23, 2013, the Defendant received a tax invoice as if he were supplied, even though there was no fact that the Defendant received a total of KRW 33,500,000 from H companies.

arrow