beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
From March 20, 200 to June 26, 2012, the Defendant, while working as the representative director of E, a company that manufactures and sells the C/W base and the C/W base. In the same place, from August 28, 2009 to August 28, 201, the Defendant acquired the F/C (hereinafter, a stock company, the trade name of which was changed to G, from July 28, 201; hereinafter, the same shall apply) of the company that manufactures the paper gambling, and managed it until December 9, 201.
1. Issuance of a false tax invoice;
A. On December 31, 2009, the Defendant issued three business parties, including E, a false tax invoice of KRW 2,861,259,910, respectively, even though there was no supply of the product, as if the Defendant supplied the product to G office in spite of the Defendant’s supply of the product, from that time, the supply price of the product was 201,450,000, and from that time until September 30, 201, there was no supply of the goods or services as shown in the separate crime list (1).
B. Around May 31, 2009, the Defendant issued 8 copies of a false tax invoice with the total supply value of 628,759,560 each among 2 business parties, including F, etc., even though there was no supply of the product, as if the Defendant supplied the product to F, even though there was no supply of the product. From that time until December 31, 2009, the Defendant issued 8 copies of a false tax invoice with the total supply value of 628,759,560, which was 628,759,560, respectively, to 2 business parties, including F, etc.
2. Receipt of false tax invoices;
A. On May 31, 2009, the Defendant: (a) around E Office Co., Ltd.; and (b) as if the Defendant was supplied with the product, the supply price of the product is 186,962,350, as if the product was supplied without the Defendant’s supply of the product from FH.