logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.02.19 2015고단845
조세범처벌법위반등
Text

Defendant

A, B, and C shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Defendant

A corporation shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

(b).

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant A was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on June 19, 2015, and the judgment of the first instance court was reversed in the appellate court. As such, “The Seoul Eastern District Court was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on February 12, 2015,” the written indictment became final and conclusive on August 27, 2015.

"2015 Highest 845"

1. No person who commits a single crime by Defendant A shall receive a tax invoice under tax-related Acts without being supplied with goods or services;

Nevertheless, around September 20, 201, the Defendant was issued a false tax invoice as if he were supplied with materials equivalent to KRW 120 million at the supply price by the Vienna Construction Co., Ltd. although he did not receive materials from the Vienna Construction Co., Ltd., the Defendant, at Defendant D office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H2, and the fact was not supplied by the Vienna Construction Co., Ltd.

2. No person who commits a joint crime by Defendant A, B, or C may issue any tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying goods or services;

Defendant

B was introduced by Defendant C, a corporation operated by Defendant A, in the middle of the transaction of building materials, because it was impossible to issue tax invoices under the name of the Defendant because it was not registered as a business operator, and thus, it was a business entity that can lend its registered name for the issuance of tax invoices.

Therefore, at the above D office located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Itel around February 2, 2013, the Defendants conspired to issue a false tax invoice, such as an agreement to issue a tax invoice in the above D name and to distribute profits accruing from the issuance of tax invoice in the above D name when Defendant B and Defendant A manage the materials payment passbook deposited from the construction of the above ASEAN.

arrow