beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
The execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, around April 23, 2015, engaged in the Handphone retail business with the trade name of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C and C. 708 of the C. D, and even though there was no fact that the Defendant received goods or services from “E”, the Defendant received a false tax invoice as if he received goods or services equivalent to KRW 19,560,00 from “E” and received a false tax invoice from “E” as if he received goods or services. From around that time to June 29, 2015, the Defendant was issued a copy of Chapter 29 of the false tax invoice amounting to the total supply value of KRW 2,44,458,400 by the same method as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Table 29 times from that time until June 29, 2015.
Summary of Evidence
1. Legal statement of witness F;
1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;
1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect of some of the police against the accused (including the cross-examination);
1. The accusation statement, each transaction statement, each transaction statement, and tax invoice [the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they are not issued with false tax invoice because they are supplied with handphones by paying normal price to E. However, Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act imposes a punishment for issuing or receiving tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or receiving goods or services. This includes not only issuing or receiving tax invoice without being supplied or being supplied with goods or services, but also receiving tax invoice from a person who is not the actual supplier of the goods or services, and also receiving the tax invoice prepared by another person who is not the actual supplier of the goods or services (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010). In other words, F, a party to the above transaction, is charged with the crime of violating Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in most cases of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.