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

A credit card merchant shall not do business by credit cards in the name of another credit card merchant.

At the Incheon City, the Defendant registered each credit card member store in accordance with the general restaurant called “D” (business registration number E) in the name of the Defendant and “G” (business registration number H) in the name of “G” (business registration number H) in the name of Defendant F.

On January 201, the Defendant, at the above D general restaurant, received a credit card for the settlement of meal costs from a nominal customer who used the above restaurant, and settled the meal costs using the credit card board of the above G G, a duty-free business entity located in the said restaurant, and as indicated in the attached list of crimes, committed an act of trading by credit card using the name of another credit card merchant by settling a total of KRW 814,971,00 in total over 7,368 times from the above date to June 2013, as described in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of two copies of card slips, on-site photographs, use of tax-free cards cards (201/01/201-201/06), business registration certificates (tax-free business operators), business registration certificates (general tax-free business operators), investigation reports (Listening to the I telephone statement of an accused agent), two copies of the Value-Added Tax Certification Institute, and investigation reports (2 times of hearing I telephone statements of an accused agent);

1. Article 70 (2) 3 and Article 19 (4) 3 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service and Criminal Act is that the defendant is a duty-free business operator, and the general restaurant is a duty-free business operator with the well-known knowledge that it is a taxable business operator, thereby evading the value-added tax.

However, the defendant is the first offender, and confession and reflects.