A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On January 20, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Trademark Act at the Daejeon District Court on the grounds of a violation of the Trademark Act. The said judgment was finalized on the 28th of the same month.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant is the representative of D of the manufacturer of automobile parts in South Yangyang-si, the defendant is the representative of D.

No person liable to prepare and issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act shall issue any tax invoice.

Nevertheless, the Defendant sold 267,052,00 won in the foregoing D office from January 201 to June 30 of the same year, and did not issue a tax invoice between the above period to June 30, 2013, by selling beesing equivalent to the sum of KRW 3,031,50,000, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, even though the Defendant sold beesing to 18 business entities, including E, and did not issue a tax invoice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. An accusation or a supplementary report on the completion of an investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning non-issuance of tax invoices;

1. Relevant provisions of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 10 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the crime of this case is committed in consideration of the disorder of sound commercial transactions and the impairment of transparency in taxes, and the nature of the crime is not good, the period of the crime of the defendant, the amount of the failure to issue tax invoices, and other relevant factors);

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (The fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes in this case, the fact that there is no record of the same kind of crime, and the principle of equality, etc. when the defendant was judged as concurrent concurrent crimes violating the Trademark Act as stated in all the facts in the judgment);

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;