beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant is a person who has been engaged in petroleum retail business from April 6, 2010 to May 6, 2012, with the trade name of LAC.
A petroleum retailer shall not evade taxes or receive a refund or deduction of taxes by using or selling petroleum to be used by farmers, persons engaged in forestry, and fishermen for other purposes.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, on July 15, 2010, sold the transit and oil to the general public without selling it to the farmers for agriculture, and as if he sold the transit and oil to the general public, applied for the refund of tax-free oil reduced or exempted on July 28, 2010 by fraudulent means, such as traffic tax, education tax, driving tax, etc. 41,243 won in total from around that time to January 26, 2012, the Defendant received a refund of KRW 45,250,713,605 won in total from around 205,250 in transit, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.
As a result, the Defendant was refunded taxes by using and selling petroleum to be used in agriculture, forestry, or fishery by farmers, persons engaged in forestry, and fishermen for purposes other than those of agriculture, forestry, or fishery.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of the witness D;
1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;
1. Details of tax exemption, illegal refund, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written accusation;
1. Article 4 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 106-2 (1) 1 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the selection of imprisonment concerning the crime;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. The fact that there is no previous conviction against the defendant under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, and that the entire amount refunded as a result of the crime in this case cannot be seen as the amount of profit actually earned by the defendant.