2018Gohap18 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Delivery etc.)

1. A;

2. B

The red-regular (prosecutions, public trials), and the second public trial;

Law Firm Future (for Defendant A)

C. Attorney C.

Attorney D (for the defendant A)

Attorney E (Defendant B)

April 26, 2018

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and fine for 4.9 billion won, by imprisonment for one year and six months and by a fine for 1.8 billion won, respectively.

In the event that the defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the defendants shall be confined to the defendant A, and 3,600,000 won for the defendant B, and 3,600,000 won for each day, respectively, in the old house.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Criminal facts

No one shall be issued or issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with goods or services.

1. Defendant A

Defendant A was the representative director of Fmere Co., Ltd. from June 2015 to June 2016, and was the person who actually runs the G industry from November 2016 to June 2016.

A. On June 29, 2015, Defendant A received a false tax invoice (Fmerp related to a stock company) and received a false tax invoice of KRW 30,620,761,333 in the same way from H metal for profit-making purposes, as shown in the separate sheet 1, in the same manner, even though he did not have received waste-shaped weights from H metal in the Fmerp office located in Sin-si, Sin-si, Sin-si, even though he was not supplied with H metal, he received a tax invoice of KRW 45,808,480 of the value of supply, and around that time, he received a false tax invoice of KRW 443 of the value of supply from H metal for profit-making purposes, as shown in the separate sheet 1.

B. On July 4, 2017, Defendant A received a false tax invoice (related to the G industry of the Company Company) in the G industry office located in Pyeongtaek-si joint-dong, with the supply price of KRW 148,975,00, and received one tax invoice from around that time to October 10, 2017, in addition to the receipt of a false tax invoice equivalent to the supply price of KRW 17,711,6,400, in total of supply price for profit-making purposes, as shown in the separate sheet 2, from that time until November 10, 2017, Defendant A received 111 copies of the false tax invoice in the same manner. Defendant B on February 2, 2012.

Defendant B is a person who has registered the wholesale and retail business in the name of "non-satisfy" in the interesting Dong in Kimhae-si.

On July 4, 2017, Defendant B issued a tax invoice with the content of supplying waste Dongs equivalent to KRW 148,975,000 in supply value, even though there was no fact that the Dong was supplied to the G industry, and issued a false tax invoice with the content of supplying waste Dongs equivalent to KRW 148,975,00 in the same manner from around that time to October 10, 2017 in the same manner as shown in the attached Table 3 of Crimes List 111,71,16,40 in total for profit-making purposes, as shown in the attached Table 3.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness J and K;

1. Partial statement of the witness L;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of each prosecutor's suspect against the Defendants

1. Some statements made against Defendant A in each protocol of examination of suspects of police offenses;

1. Making some statements in each protocol of suspect examination of M in the prosecution against M;

1. Some statements in the prosecutor's statement concerning L;

1. Some statements among the police interrogation protocol of M;

1. Partial statements in the police statement concerning L;

1. Each accusation, investigation report, list of each electronic tax invoice issued, details of the issuance of sales tax invoice (I non-Iron-G industry), sales electronic tax invoice (Non-Iron-G industry), and tax invoice (H metal issuance part);

1. Investigation report (Attachment, such as a copy of a lease contract, confirmation of a telephone subscriber of the lease contract, report on the site of warrant execution, copies of seized articles and photographs, attachment of measurement programs and data on digital forensic analysis, attachment of measurement programs and printed materials, preparation of a list of purchase of non-ferrouss, attachment of a certified copy of M judgment [Attachment of national tax, reporting on confirmation of failure to pay national tax, personal information of customer operators, etc.], attachment of a certified copy of M judgment

1. A copy of the lease contract, corporate register certificate, each photograph, telephone subscriber name, telephone subscriber name, monetary records of Defendant A and N, copies and photographs of seized articles, G industry stock transfer contracts, register of shareholders, register of shareholders (G industry), certificate of minutes of the board of directors of the G industry, the current status of delivery (from February 25, 2015 to August 3, 2015), each cell phone message, each printed material, each printed material, purchase date list, three copies of purchase and sale status, judgment on M, personal information of the trader, Franchis bank details, and the details of transactions of new banks excluded from the F.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 8-2 (1) 1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the receipt of each false tax invoice, each of them collectively, and each of them shall be punished by imprisonment and fines concurrently);

(b) Defendant B: Article 8-2 (1) 1 and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the issuance of a false tax invoice, collectively, the issuance of a false tax invoice, and both imprisonment and fine)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: Articles 37, 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [the punishment of concurrent crimes against imprisonment with prison labor prescribed for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.) related to Fmersa Co., Ltd. with heavier penalty; the punishment of fines is excluded pursuant to Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; so the restriction on aggravation of fines is excluded from the application of the restriction on

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53, 55(1)3, and 55(1)6 of each Criminal Code (The following circumstances are considered as favorable among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and (2) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Judgment on the assertion of Defendants and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendants traded the actual discontinuance of business and issued or received each of the instant tax invoices equivalent to the value of supply. In addition, the Defendants did not have any profit-making purpose at the time they were issued or issued each of the instant tax invoices.

2. Results of the jury verdict;

A. Defendant A

- - Seven persons (nives)

B. Defendant B

- - Six persons:

- Not guilty: one person. Determination of jurors

The Defendants issued or received a tax invoice as stated in the judgment in order to provide data on H metal and non-ferrouss, in fact, did not supply the waste Dongs to the Fmere and G industry, a stock company, and the G industry as follows.

1. The legal applicable range of sentencing

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment between June and June 22, and fine of 4,833,192,773 won) - 12,082,981,933 won 2);

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment between June and 15 years, and fine of 1,771,116,640 won)-4,427,791,600 won 4

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria (limited to imprisonment with prison labor);

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for three years to six years (basic areas);

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment of two to four years (basic areas)

3. Sentencing opinions on jurors;

A. Defendant A

(i) imprisonment;

- Two years of imprisonment, two years of stay of execution; three persons;

- 3 years of imprisonment: 4 persons;

(ii) fines;

- Fines of 10 billion won: 3 persons;

9.6 billion won by fine: one person.

Fines 4.8 billion won: Three persons;

B. Defendant B

1. One year and six months of imprisonment: Seven persons;

(b) a fine of 1.7 billion won: Seven persons;

4. Determination of sentence;

가. 피고인 A◎ 불리한 정상

- Defendant A’s each of the of the instant crimes committed by Defendant A, who is issued a false tax invoice from the above large-scale carbon company, in order to avoid the spread of the problem of fraudulent transactions and supply it to the same company in the name of the above large-scale business entity and to avoid the expansion of the problem of illegal transactions into a superior business entity by paying the purchase price in advance, managing it, and collecting a large amount of waste free materials, such as M and Defendant B, etc. operating the H metal, which is the so-called large-scale business entity (the so-called large-scale carbon business entity), in the course of operating the Fmers and the G industry, which is the so-called signboard business entity5), caused serious interference with the legitimate exercise of the national tax collection authority by aiding and abetting the tax evasion of the closed-scale sales entity that trades as non-data, as well as by promoting large-scale non-data transactions, thereby impairing the sound order

- The circumstances in which Defendant A led each of the crimes of this case, and the aggregate of the tax invoices issued falsely exceeds 48.3 billion won;

Defendant A may be deemed to have less than the total sum of the supply value, etc.

- The value-added tax arising in the course of each of the closed-dong sales of this case is paid through the special system for purchase.

- Defendant A has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and other various sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the age, character and conduct, family relation, motive and circumstances of the crime, circumstances after the crime, jury opinions, etc., shall be determined as ordered by taking into comprehensive account the following factors.

B. Defendant B

(1) Unfavorable circumstances

Defendant B, while operating the so-called B-called B-called “prepaid money,” he received the purchase price in advance from Defendant A, and collected a large quantity of waste-free materials by formally participating in the process of transaction between the closed-end seller who wants not to issue a tax invoice in order to evade the output tax amount, and in order to collect a large quantity of waste-free materials in the process of transaction between the closed-end seller who wants to collect data from the waste-free materials, and in order to distribute the waste-free materials collected in accordance with Defendant A’s instructions for profit-making purposes such as receiving fees for the quantity of distributed waste-free agreements, etc., Defendant B issued a false tax invoice to encourage and aid and encourage the tax evasion of the closed-end seller, which is traded as non-data, thereby causing serious obstacles to the State’s legitimate exercise of the right to tax collection. Moreover, Defendant B’s crime of this case was organized and planned as a crime that undermines sound commercial order by encouraging large-scale

- Defendant B’s total tax invoice issued by Defendant B by falsity exceeds 17.7 billion won, without being aware of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to drinking driving, etc.

(6) favorable circumstances.

Defendant B’s actual profit from the instant crime is less than the total amount of supply value, etc.

- The value-added tax generated in the course of each of the closed buildings of this case is paid through the special system for purchase price payment.

- Defendant B has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and upon full consideration of the various factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, jury opinions, etc., the sentence shall be determined as ordered.

It is so decided as per Disposition through the participatory trial for more than one reason.

The presiding judge, judge and chief offender;

Judges Indices

Judges Gangseo-gu

1) (30,620,761,33 won x 10% x 2 x 0.5) + (17,711, 166,400 won x 10% x 2 x 0.5)

2) (30,620,761,33 x 10% X5 x 0.5) + (17,71, 16,400 x 10% x 5 x 0.5)

3) (17,711,166,400 X 10% X x 2 x 0.5)

(iv) (17,711, 166,40 won x 10 percent x 5 x 0.5)

5) A signboard company means a business entity’s failure to deduct the input tax amount of the actual business entity if it is subject to a tax investigation, etc.

In order to prevent the examination and to avoid the extension of the problem of illegal transactions to a superior customer, the intermediate between the company and the actual business operator

A business entity at the stage of a bombing. Although there is no data to purchase a bombing business entity, sales to the signboard business entity are processed as normal.

I would like to see it as a simple problem of default of value-added tax by preparing and keeping ice. It is necessary to see it as a simple problem of default of value-added tax.

Even if the transaction of an excessive coal company is found to be false at the whole stage, it shall be prevented from transferring such damage to the actual business entity.

Even if the transaction of a company is determined by the authorities as a processing transaction, the signboard company shall be recognized as a disguised transaction by making the sale clear.

A person who purchased a closed-dong as non-data and without the burden of value-added tax is only eligible for non-deduction of input tax.

in order to issue a tax invoice, the use of a gas supply company and the problem of illegal transactions shall be expanded to the higher transaction partner.

Since the signboard company is only used for such purpose, it is not the actual transaction party.

6) The term “large-scale carbon company” refers to a large amount of income tax, etc. imposed on the company after reporting large volume of sales to distribute waste dong, without reporting purchase.

A business entity that closes its business without paying taxes. A wide coal business entity is a business entity that operates only a sales tax invoice without purchase data.

It is normally operated and closed for one taxable period without paying taxes related to the issuance, and it is normally operated and closed for one taxable period.

from the beginning, there is no intent to pay the relevant taxes. Accordingly, during the distribution process of the waste consent, the local government shall pay the relevant taxes such as the actual income tax.

Tax losses are incurred due to the absence of any person to receive tax payment.