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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person operating "D" in the Southern-gu B and C.

No one shall issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying any goods or service.

Around April 30, 2018, the Defendant issued 10 copies of tax invoices of KRW 78,874,300 as the supply price of goods or services, regardless of the fact that he/she supplied goods or services to E Co., Ltd., and issued 10 copies of tax invoices of KRW 1,221,032,636 in total, even though he/she did not supply goods or services as shown in the “crime List” from that to December 14, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to F, G, and H;

1. A report on closure of investigation;

1. Each electronic tax invoice (up to 29 through 42 pages of evidence);

1. Details of transactions in the business account I Bank (A) and details of the issuance of electronic tax invoices;

1. The former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter the same applies) asserts to the effect that since the application for graduation of a business incubator from the J University, each of the certified transcript of corporate register, and each of the basic information of the business operators [the defendant and his defense counsel] issued false tax invoices, the Defendant’s punishment H (the death of May 27, 2020) is not an actor prescribed in the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Article 10(3)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an act of issuing a tax invoice shall be punished even if the “person obliged to issue a tax invoice pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act” did not supply goods or services. Here, Article 2 subparag. 3 and subparag. 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the person obliged to issue the tax invoice is an independent supplier of goods or services (Article 2 subparag. 3 and subparag. 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act). According to the foregoing evidence, the Defendant constitutes a “D operator,”