Defendant

A Imprisonment of six months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five thousand won, respectively.

except that this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

F is a corporation established for the purpose of plastic product manufacturing, etc. for assembly of machinery and equipment located in the wife G in Young-si and the defendant A is the representative of the above company.

The Defendant, when E.S. and E.S. (State) constitute a special person under tax law and engage in direct transactions between the two companies, was unable to be calculated as the sales of E.S. (State) based on international accounting standards, and the Defendant’s use of F. (State) operated by the Defendant as an intermediate distribution company to avoid this, and had the appearance of false transactions, such as receiving false tax invoices.

1. Defendant A

A. The Defendant received a false tax invoice in around September 30, 2013 and around December 31, 2013, at the above F (State) office, the Defendant: (a) mediated a transaction between E.S. and E.S. in the K.A. and the K.A. in the K.B., and (b) actually received goods from E.S. from E.A. in fact, the Defendant received each tax invoice on December 31, 2013, the supply price was 736,879,681, caused by E.S. Co., Ltd. as if he received goods, such as E., from E.S., as he had received goods from E.A. to K.B., regardless of the fact that he received goods directly from E.S.., the Defendant received each tax invoice on September 30, 2013 and the supply price was 546,481,63 cause.

B. The Defendant issued a false tax invoice on September 30, 2013 and around December 31, 2013, at the above F (State office) office, the Defendant just mediated the transaction as above, but actually provided E.S. goods, such as E.C. to E. E. E. E. E., the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on September 30, 2013 to E.S., each of the supply price of the goods, such as E. E. E. E. E., E. E. E., E., E. E., E., E., E., E., E., E., E., E., E., E., Ltd., as the supply price was directly supplied to E. E. E. E., E., E., E., E., and the supply price was 52,468, E.C. and one copy of the tax invoice on December 31, 2013.

2. Defendant F (State) Company, the representative of the Defendant Company, committed the above-mentioned violation in relation to the Defendant Company’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A-.