A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 Justice, etc.] From August 1, 2010 to May 12, 2011, the Defendant served as representative director at a stock company D located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, as the representative director. On February 9, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Defendant to two years of suspended execution on October 26, 2012 due to the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (favour), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2012.

[2014 Highest 4225]

1. On January 25, 2011, the Defendant: (a) filed a preliminary return of value-added tax for the second year of 2010 with the Young Military Register; and (b) notwithstanding the absence of the supply of goods or services to 52 business entities, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by the second year of 2010, stating false details by the seller, as shown in the attached Table 1, as if he/she supplied the goods, such as miscellaneous worth of KRW 2,119,656,000, to the above business entities, as shown in the attached Table 1.

2. On January 25, 2011, the Defendant: (a) filed a preliminary return of value-added tax base for the second period of 2010 on the Youngmun Tax Office; and (b) notwithstanding that there was no supply of goods or services from six companies, such as (ju) Seo Seo Seo Seo Marine Products, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller, stating in the attached Table 2 the details of the supply price of goods, such as miscellaneous goods equivalent to KRW 2,196,350,000, as if the goods were supplied from the above companies, as shown in the attached Table 2.

[2014 Highest 4397] The Defendant, around January 28, 2011, did not provide goods to D office of the said stock company D, while the Defendant did not provide goods to D, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice as if he supplied the construction materials, etc. equivalent to the total supply price of KRW 85,620,000 to D, and the crime list 3 attached to attached Table 3 of the crime sight list 2,050, total supply price of Chapter 3 of the false tax invoice issued to G, but according to the tax invoice (G), etc., it is apparent that the supply price is 7,600,8,050 ($6,400), 6,000 ($0), and 6,400) in light of the pleadings of the instant case.