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 becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant is a person who operates a construction business or air-conditioning/conditioning/conditioning construction business in Ulsan-gu B from October 20, 2015 to July 31, 2018 under the name of the wife D.
1. No person who violates Article 10 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (issuance of a false tax invoice) shall issue any sales tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act by entering it in a false manner;
A. A. Around December 26, 2017, the Defendant committed the crime at around December 26, 2017: (a) around December 26, 2017, a sales tax invoice stating false details that the Defendant performed remodeling works equivalent to KRW 1,358,181,81,818, and KRW 2,000,000,000 of the excessive supply price of KRW 1,358,181, and KRW 818, were issued to G as the actual manager of the building.
B. On December 29, 2017, around December 29, 2017, the Defendant issued to H a sales tax invoice stating the false fact that the Defendant performed construction work equivalent to KRW 136,363,636,363, and KRW 500,000,000, in excess of KRW 363,63, while performing construction work on the building located in the building located in Ulsan-gu E-Gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, a rental business operator’s Ulsan-gu, and that the Defendant performed construction work on the building in excess of KRW 136,363,63,63, and 363.
Accordingly, the Defendant issued two copies of the false sales tax invoice stating the excessive amount of KRW 1,721,818,181 on two occasions from December 16, 2017 to December 29, 2017.
2. No person who violates Article 10 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (or any false tax invoice) shall issue a purchase tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act by entering it in a false manner;
A. A. On August 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around August 2, 2017, at the K-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S.J office, the Defendant, despite having had the K-gu, U.S.J office producing steel frame equivalent to KRW 18,181,81,81, and KRW 120,000,000, the excessive supply value stated in KRW 101,181.