A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who, from October 2008 to June 2014, operates the Electricity parts wholesale business entity D in Seocheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) under Article 501 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Construction A-1423 from June 2012 to August 2014.

1. D-related matters

A. On July 30, 2012, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice of KRW 2,98,900 in total 14 times from that time to August 30, 2013, by issuing a false tax invoice as if he/she supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 172,86,00 of the value of supply to DF, notwithstanding the fact that D had not supplied goods or services to DF, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice of KRW 2,98,906,00 in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes (1) in the same manner.

B. On July 10, 2012, the Defendant received a false tax invoice issued a false tax invoice of KRW 3,146,624,000, in total, 76 times from the F, as shown in the Schedule of Crimes (2) by the same method, from the time when he/she received a false tax invoice as if he/she received goods or services equivalent to KRW 53,850,000 of the value of supply, even though he/she had not received goods or services from the D office, notwithstanding that he/she had not received any goods or services from the State.

2. (State)F-related

A. On January 4, 2013, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice of KRW 1,808,556,000 in total to G in the same 44 times from that time, such as issuing a false tax invoice as if the F had supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 30,896,000 of the supply value, although the fact was not that the D office supplied the goods or services to G, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice of KRW 1,808,56,000 in total to G in the same manner, as shown in the attached list of crimes (3) from that time to August 30, 2013.

B. On January 31, 2013, the Defendant receiving a false tax invoice is the (State) F.