A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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

The defendant is a person who served as the vice president of C from April 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009.

1. On December 22, 2008, the Defendant received a false tax invoice from the Kdi Information and Communications Co., Ltd., which was issued a false tax invoice of KRW 1,661,556,547, even though C did not receive any goods or services from the Kdidi Information and Communications Co., Ltd., which was located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, even though C did not receive any goods or services from

2. The Defendant issued a false tax invoice on December 23, 2008, even though C did not supply goods or services to E, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice of KRW 1,678,156,547 to E, a stock company, even though C did not supply goods or services to E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness F in the court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partial police officers of the accused;

1. Full-time statement of the F;

1. A written accusation and a written statement of termination and withdrawal of the investigation of a tax offense;

1. Determination as to the assertion of each tax invoice (No. 36, 44 of the evidence records) by the Defendant and the defense counsel

1. The Defendant alleged that the transaction subject to each of the instant tax invoices was a real transaction.

The Defendant did not participate in the issuance or receipt of false tax invoices.

2. Determination

A. It is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware that each of the instant tax invoices was received by falsity, in light of the following facts acknowledged by each of the above evidence, whether the Defendant knew that the said tax invoices were received by falsity.

① The tax invoice of this case is prepared on the day immediately following the date of preparation of the purchase tax invoice.

In light of the fact that the purchase tax invoice was already scheduled to sell and purchase goods at the time of the preparation of the purchase tax invoice, but the interval is only one day, it is difficult to view it as an ordinarily scheduled delivery and

2. The defendant is distinguished from such processing or false transactions.