logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.15 2017고정301
조세범처벌법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

B is the representative of the Do retail chain D in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the defendant is the head of the Do retail store D, and the defendant is the person who conducts the duty, such as tax representation of E (representative F) as the clothing company as the head of the friend group B, and the defendant conspired to issue tax invoices in the name of B and D in a fraudulent manner.

According to the above public offering, the Defendant and B issued a false tax invoice amounting to KRW 126,918,000,000, from that time to June 30, 2012, including the issuance of a false tax invoice as if they supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 48,48,00, although they did not supply goods or services to E on January 31, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A list of tax invoices and a list of total tax invoices by customer (the investigation records No. 2, No. 59);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the I Bank Business Account Details on BH Bank Transactions, reply (I Bank), F (E) to a request for each financial transaction details;

1. Relevant provisions of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines for the crimes;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the provisions on aggravation of restrictions on concurrence of fines in Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act concerning each crime listed in the judgment below) shall not apply to concurrent crimes. With respect to each crime listed in the attached table for sight, one million won shall be determined by adding up them);

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that he introduced D's representative B to F, and did not perform E's tax agency's agency duty, so D's agent did not participate in issuing false tax invoice to E.

2. First of all, we examine whether the Defendant was performing the E-Tax Agent.

arrow