beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant was the representative of the Daegu-gu Seoul-gu Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., operating the construction of urban gas facilities from March 8, 2011 to December 10, 2014.
1. No one who has under-issuance and under-issuance of tax invoices shall issue tax invoices pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act or issue them with false entries;
A. On May 31, 201, the Defendant under-issuance of the tax invoice issued under-issuance of the tax invoice, from that time to June 30, 201, the Defendant issued under-issuance of the tax invoice totaling KRW 1,207,535,794 of the supply price, including the facility contributions, at the D office located in Daegu-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Office, and issued under-issuance of the tax invoice totaling KRW 2,360,000,000, excluding the facility contributions, at the facility contributions, and issued the tax invoice of KRW 2,059,964, excluding the facility contributions.
B. On July 19, 201, the Defendant, who was not issued a tax invoice, issued the above D office, did not issue a tax invoice of KRW 391,03,637 in total for 160 times in total, including that: (a) F did not install urban gas equivalent to KRW 1,00,000 of the construction cost; and (b) did not issue a tax invoice of KRW 727,251 in total, excluding the total value of facility contributions, from the total amount of KRW 200,024; and (c) did not issue a tax invoice of KRW 391,03,637 in total, by December 26, 2013, including that of the attached list
2. After having constructed urban gas facilities, the Defendant received the construction cost from the Defendant’s personal account, not the said corporation’s account, and thereafter transferred part of the money deposited by the customers to the corporation account under the name of the customers, as described in paragraph 1., the Defendant was willing to evade taxes by using false or other unlawful means to issue tax invoices under the corresponding amount, or to omit sales without transferring it to the corporation account.