logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.02 2017고합48
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The Defendant in the facts charged is the representative of F, who is engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as scrap iron and rain iron in Seo-gu Incheon, and G is a person who actually runs the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) at Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

G established F in order to secure tax data when it supplies waste glass purchased from non-data free of money in the name of the Defendant to the trading office, and prepared and submitted a false tax invoice to the tax office as if the F purchased the waste glass from non-data free of money and then supplied it to the transaction office, and the Defendant conspired to submit a list of the total tax invoices by the sales office, which are recorded falsely in the name of F, and to close the F after a certain period.

On January 25, 2015, the Defendant reported a subdivision of value-added tax at the Incheon tax office located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon on February 25, 2014 according to the above public invitation with G, and provided goods equivalent to KRW 4,060,568,230, even though the Defendant did not supply goods or services to J.

The supply of goods equivalent to 12,237,446,100 won in total, as stated in the list of crimes in attached Form 12,237,446,100

On February 2, 2014, a false statement was submitted to the public official in charge of the tax office a list of total tax invoices by the former seller.

2. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant alleged that he actually supplied F’s actual operator to the customer, and that G, other than the Defendant, actually operated F.

The act of the defendant, which only lent the F business operator's name to G, does not fall under the elements of Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

B. 1) The fact that the final and conclusive criminal judgment has already been recognized on the same factual basis of the relevant legal doctrine is significant.

arrow