A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who runs a construction business, etc. with the trade name “D” from July 2014 to January 2016 in Ulsandong-gu C.

It shall not be allowed to issue or receive tax invoices without being supplied with or being supplied with goods or services pursuant to the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act, and shall not issue or submit to the Government any tax invoices with false entries of a list of total tax invoices by purchaser and seller.

1. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant issued and received a false tax invoice, and the Defendant issued or issued a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 970,590,000 in total, 11 times from around that time until January 29, 2016, in the PC room in which it is impossible to identify the trade name in the ancient Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and the fact is not a fact that the Defendant supplied the “E” with the goods or services equivalent to KRW 23,00,000 in the supply price, even though there was no fact that the goods or services were supplied to the “E”.

2. On January 25, 2015, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer entering false information, upon filing a final return on value added tax for the second period of February 2, 2014 at the Dongsan tax office located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, and the aforementioned “D,” the fact was that the Defendant supplied the said “E” with goods or services equivalent to KRW 44,000,000, irrespective of the fact that there was no supply of goods or services equivalent to the supply price, and submitted a false list of total tax invoices by customer to the said tax office.

3. Issuing a false statement of tax invoice;

A. On November 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) provided the said “E” with goods or services equivalent to KRW 1,200,000 in supply price; (b) provided the goods or services equivalent to KRW 51,20,000 in supply price; and (c) issued a tax invoice by stating a false description of the tax invoice as if the Defendant supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 51,20,000 in supply price.

B. On October 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around the Gyeongnam-si (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul-si”); and (b) in such a manner, goods or services equivalent to KRW 26,880,000 for the supply price.