[Defendant K] Imprisonment with prison labor and fine of 2,500,000,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Justice] On May 26, 2010, Defendant K was sentenced to six months of imprisonment at the Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong Housing Site, and completed the execution of the said sentence on September 26, 2010.

【Criminal Facts】

No person shall submit to the Government the sales and purchase tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with goods or services for profit by entering them in falsity.

The Defendants, at the end of 2011, issued a tax invoice for the closed-end sales of non-data without any tax invoice to intermediate the transaction of non-data-free transactions without any tax invoice, and, at the end of 201, came to distribute the closed-end sales of non-data-free businesses, without paying taxes such as the value-added tax on the sales, and then came to divide the profits by half. At that time, the Defendants suggested that N would issue a tax invoice for the closed-end sales of non-data-free goods in the name of the said company to the effect that “50 won per closed-dong sales of non-data-free goods after registering the business of the distributor of non-stock-free goods,” and that at the same time, N would deliver the tax invoice to the above company

N under the above proposal by the Defendants, as C’s representative, registered a business operator with respect to “C”, which is a temporary coaler, on January 10, 2012. On July 25, 2012, when filing a value-added tax return on “C” with the Seocheon Tax Office located in Seocheon-gu, Incheon District District Office No. 369-ro 17, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, on July 25, 2012, “A” only purchased without material from his name and sold it to “O, etc.,” and although C did not sell it, as indicated in paragraphs 1 through 6 of the crime list, C submitted a total supply price to six businesses, such as C, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and submitted a list of total tax invoice stating as if it were sold, and ② the fact that the Defendants only used P in the closed data transaction and did not have used it.