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

The defendant is a person who operates C in Pyeongtaek-si B, and C is a corporation established for the purpose of human resources supply business.

No person may receive a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied with goods or services.

On November 30, 2015, the Defendant received false tax invoices amounting to KRW 2,13,533,000, in total, eight times from September 30, 2016, including that the Defendant received services equivalent to the supply value of KRW 115,53,00, although the Defendant did not receive the supply of goods or services from D, and received false tax invoices amounting to KRW 2,13,575,560, in total, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A general taxable person's value-added tax return and electronic tax invoice;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written accusation;

1. Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the selection of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the relevant criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (where concurrent crimes are committed, the number of concurrent crimes prescribed in the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, No. 5 times the largest number of concurrent crimes);

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

1. The defendant was not provided with service, and received approximately KRW 2.1 billion false tax invoices from the material, for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act.

Defendant

A superior company in receipt of a purchase tax invoice from the operating corporation normally deducts the input tax amount, while the sales office of the defendant's operating corporation is likely to omit the value-added tax as a so-called large carbon company. Such behavior of the defendant interferes with the exercise of the state's right to tax collection, and disturbs the water quality of the tax invoice, and the criminal liability is not easy.

However, whether the above harm was actually caused.