Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a registration director who actually operates the Fund in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is established for the interest of the representative director of the Fund in Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, 101 Dong 102, and the trust director who actually operates the Fund in Seocho-gu, Seoul, which is established for the purpose of the Fund in charge of the management of the Fund in question. G is a person who is an employee of the Fund in charge of the Fund in question, and H has worked

H In the course of performing a sales agency service for the K-si K-si K-si K-si K-si K-si L, which was developed and sold on July 2012, 2012, when it is anticipated that the tax would be excessively imposed on G with the introduction of the land-person, and G would register H, etc. as an employee in the form of the K-si K-si L-si L-si L-si, a corporate entrepreneur, in the form of the K-si-si, and it is reasonable for K to issue the tax invoice to the K-si-si, the K-si-si, a corporate entrepreneur, to conclude that H, etc.

The consent of H is obtained, and it is reported to the defendant, who is the actual operator of F, and the consent was obtained, and thereafter H, etc. was registered as the employee of H, etc. F, at that time.

Accordingly, on October 30, 2012, the Defendant issued an electronic tax invoice amounting to KRW 124,00,000 in total three times from March 28, 2013, including the issuance of an electronic tax invoice as if he/she supplied services equivalent to KRW 60,00,000 in the supply price to the Dispute Settlement Bank L, even though the FF did not supply the sales agency services to the Dispute Settlement Bank L, the Defendant issued an electronic tax invoice amounting to KRW 124,00,000 in total, as shown in the following crime list.

Accordingly, in collusion with G and H, the Defendant issued three copies of false electronic tax invoices equivalent to 124,000,000 won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Some statements made concerning G in the protocol concerning the examination of suspects by the prosecution;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police against M or H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation report (suspect A attendance and submission of data, and confirmation of cases related to M of the L representative director company);

1. Relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;