Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months and by a fine of 3.5 billion won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 705 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) is a person who substantially operates the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”).

Around January 25, 2013, the Defendant reported the value-added tax for the second half of 2012 in the paper tax office located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “E”) for profit-making purposes. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant did not supply consulting services equivalent to 17.2 billion won to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), the Defendant prepared a false total tax invoice by buyer and submitted it to the Government.

The Defendant is the E’s representative director in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. On October 30, 2012, the Defendant received false tax invoices for profit-making purposes, and around October 30, 2012, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice in the name of D entered falsely as if he was provided with consulting services equivalent to KRW 5,600,000,00, although the fact in the above E office was not provided with consulting services equivalent to the value of supply D.

2. On November 30, 2012, the Defendant received false tax invoices for profit-making purposes, and around November 30, 2012, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice in the name of D entered falsely as if he was provided with consulting services equivalent to KRW 5,600,000,00, although the fact in the above E office was not provided with consulting services equivalent to the value of supply D.

3. On December 30, 2012, the Defendant received false tax invoices for profit-making purposes, and around December 30, 2012, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice in the name of D entered falsely as if he was provided with consulting services equivalent to the value of supply 6,00,000,000 won, although the fact in the above E office had not been provided with consulting services equivalent to the value of supply 6,00,000 won from D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A written confirmation of the defendant's preparation;

1. Each accusation, each report on the closure of investigation, each protocol of examination, and each tax invoice;