Defendant 1 and two others

Scenic, Park Hy-young (Court of Second Instance), and Syna (Court of Second Instance)

Attorney Na-soo et al.

Defendant 1’s imprisonment with prison labor and fines of KRW 18,00,000, Defendant 2’s fine of KRW 234,000,000, and Defendant 3’s fine of KRW 180,50,00, respectively.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

9,277,100 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant 1.

The provisional payment equivalent to the above fine and additional collection amount shall be ordered against Defendant 1, and the provisional payment equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered against Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 3, respectively.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, the violation of each Customs Act listed in attached Table 1-6 and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act listed in attached Table 2-3 and 4-3 among the facts charged against Defendant 1, shall be acquitted.

Acquittal of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the name lending among the charges against Defendant 1.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power】

On July 19, 2017, Defendant 1 was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc. by the Gwangju District Court, and the judgment was finalized on July 27 of the same year, and on September 6, 2018, Defendant 1 was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoice) and a fine of 400 million won on November 7, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

"2017 Gohap364 (Defendants)"

1. Defendant 3 Company (hereinafter “Defendant 3 Company”);

(a) Issuance of a false tax invoice;

No person may deliver or receive a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services. Nevertheless, Defendant 1 issued and delivered a false tax invoice stating that the supply price of goods equivalent to 40,791,636 won to Defendant 2 was supplied to Defendant 2, while the fact at the office of Defendant 2 agricultural company (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) with Defendant 1’s management (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) located in the former, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul-gun, even though the fact was not a change between Defendant 3 and Defendant 3, Defendant 2, Defendant 1 supplied goods, such as food, to Defendant 2, the company issued and supplied a false tax invoice stating that the value of goods was supplied to Defendant 40,791,636 won to Defendant 2. From around that time until February 27, 2015, Defendant 1 issued and supplied the false tax invoice to Defendant 31, the same as the supply price indicated in Attached Table 1-1, 109, 137, and 84.31.

(b) Receipt of false tax invoices;

누구든지 재화 또는 용역을 공급하지 아니하거나 공급받지 아니하고 세금계산서를 교부하거나 교부받아서는 아니 된다. 그럼에도 불구하고 피고인 1은 2012. 12. 4.경 전남 고흥군 (주소 생략)에 있는 피고인 1 운영의 피고인 2 법인 사무실에서 사실은 ▽▽▽▽▽▽(피고인 3 회사로 상호 변경)가 ◎◎◎◎ 첨단점으로부터 식품류 등의 재화를 공급받은 사실이 없음에도 마치 ▽▽▽▽▽▽가 ◎◎◎◎ 첨단점으로부터 공급가액 5,432,728원 상당의 재화를 공급받은 것처럼 기재된 세금계산서 1매를 교부받은 것을 비롯하여, 그 무렵부터 2015. 6. 30.경에 이르기까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표 1-2 기재와 같이 공급가액 합계 8,453,860,051원 상당의 재화를 공급받은 것처럼 기재된 허위 세금계산서 1,477매를 수취하고, 피고인 3 회사는 대표인 피고인 1이 위와 같이 허위 세금계산서를 수취하였다.

2. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

(a) Price manipulation;

Where anyone intends to export, import or return goods, he/she shall report to the head of the relevant customs office the name, standard, quantity and price of the relevant goods, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, and shall not acquire any property or property benefits or file a declaration by manipulating the price of the goods for the purpose of having a third party acquire

Nevertheless, around August 14, 2013, Defendant 1 exported an export declaration number (number 3 omitted) 1,032 km from Defendant 2’s corporate office located in Chungcheongnam-gun ( Address omitted), which had been around August 14, 2013, to Vietnam, and actually exported price of KRW 54,069,37, the actual export price was 80,787,998, and reported to the Gwangju Customs to manipulate the export price of KRW 80,787,98, and from around that time until June 30, 2016, the total export price of KRW 214,759,916,55,565, total of the actual export price was 5,624,67,965,966, Defendant 2, the representative of Defendant 1, as described in the [Attachment List 1-3] list of crimes.

(b) False declaration;

When anyone intends to export, import or return goods, he/she shall report to the head of the relevant customs office the name, standard, quantity and price of the relevant goods, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, and he/she shall not report or make a false report on the matters

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 exported 401,613,136 won in total on 18 occasions from around April 11, 2013 to July 19, 2013, from Defendant 2’s corporate office located in Chungcheongnam-gun ( Address omitted), to China (title 4 omitted) under the export declaration number (title 2 omitted), and Defendant 1 filed a false declaration on the export price of KRW 77,365,000 at the Gwangju Customs, despite the fact that the actual export price was KRW 82,149,560, the actual export price was KRW 82,149,000; and Defendant 2 filed a false declaration on the export price of KRW 77,365,00 in total from around that time to around July 19, 2013.

(c) smuggling;

When anyone intends to export, import or return goods, he/she shall report to the head of a customs office the name, standard, quantity and price of the relevant goods and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, Defendant 1’s total market value of KRW 4,864,00, including cream, was exported to the Gwangju Customs without filing an export declaration to the Gwangju Customs Office on March 14, 2013 at Defendant 2’s corporate office (English name 3 omitted), Defendant 1’s totaling KRW 9,277,100, total market value of 37 items, as shown in attached Table 1-5 of the same day, was exported to the Gwangju Customs Office without filing an export declaration, and without filing an export declaration number (number 2 omitted) and (number 1 omitted) of the normal export declaration number (number 2 omitted). Defendant 2, a representative of the Gwangju Customs Office, carried out smuggling export as above.

"2017 Gohap483 (Defendant 1)"

The Defendant is a person who actually operated Nonindicted Company 8, which was located in Jeonsung-gun ( Address 2 omitted) from April 15, 2011.

1. Receipt of purchase tax invoices falsely entered;

피고인은 2012. 10. 31.경 전남 고흥군 (주소 생략)에 있는 피고인 2 법인 사무실에서 사실은 공소외 8 회사가 주식회사 ○○◁◁으로부터 20,545,455원 상당의 재화만을 공급받았음에도 주식회사 ○○◁◁으로부터 공급가액 45,458,040원 상당의 재화를 공급받은 것처럼 기재된 매입세금계산서를 발급받은 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2013. 11. 30.까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표 3-1 기재와 같이 총 20회에 걸쳐 거래처로부터 공급가액 합계 498,672,536원 상당이 과다 계상된 공급가액 합계 1,516,193,847원의 매입세금계산서 20장을 수취하였다.

2. Evasion of taxes;

피고인은 주식회사 ○○◁◁ 등으로부터 허위 세금계산서를 교부받아 피고인이 실질적으로 운영하는 수출업체인 공소외 8 회사가 마치 해당 물품을 실제로 매수하여 피고인이 운영하는 피고인 2 법인에 수출대행을 의뢰하여 베트남, 태국 등에 해당 물품을 수출한 것처럼 가장하는 방법으로 수출 관련 영세율 제도에 의한 부가가치세를 환급받기로 마음먹었다.

On July 25, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 265,984,110 from Nonindicted Company 8’s name at an early refund of zero tax rate of KRW 265,984,110 in the name of Nonindicted Company 8, as indicated in the attached Table 3-2, from that time until January 25, 2014, along with any false documentary evidence as if Nonindicted Company 8 actually exported goods to Vietnam, Thailand, etc., along with a return of value-added tax of KRW 9,963,350 to the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 8 used by the Defendant as if he/she had actually exported goods.

Accordingly, the Defendant evaded taxes by fraud or other illegal act.

"2017 Gohap484 (Defendant 1)"

1. Crimes related to Nonindicted Company 10

The Defendant is a person who actually operated Nonindicted Company 10.

Upon receipt of a false tax invoice from Nonindicted Company 14, etc., the Defendant decided to receive value-added tax pursuant to the export zero tax rate system by pretending that Nonindicted Company 10, who is an exporter actually operated by the Defendant, actually purchased the relevant goods and pretended to export the relevant goods in Vietnam, Thailand, etc. around September 25, 2012. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant received a false purchase tax invoice, a list of individual tax invoices by seller, and a list of tax invoices by seller, along with documentary evidence prepared as if Nonindicted Company 10 actually exported the relevant goods in Vietnam, Thailand, etc., and received the total amount of value-added tax KRW 4,669,800 from the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 10 used by the Defendant, to be refunded from September 27, 2016, and the summary of the facts charged for acquittal (2017 High School 484) and (b) (Attached Table 4-1, 4470 days in total from Gwangju-16.

Accordingly, the Defendant evaded taxes by fraud or other illegal act.

2. Crimes related to Nonindicted Company 11

The Defendant and Nonindicted 13 (Divisions of the Defendant) are those who actually operated Nonindicted Company 11.

In collusion with Nonindicted 13, the Defendant received a false tax invoice from Nonindicted Company 15, etc., and received the false tax invoice from Nonindicted Company 11, the exporter, who actually operated by the Defendant, intended to receive the value-added tax according to the export-related zero rate system by pretending that the Defendant actually purchased the pertinent goods and pretended to export the relevant goods to Vietnam, Thai

The Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 13 on September 5, 2012, received KRW 267,233,90 in total under the name of early refund of zero tax rate, as shown in the attached Table 4-7, as shown in the attached Table 4-7, from around September 4, 2014, by submitting false evidential documents as if the purchase tax invoices, the list of individual tax invoices by seller, and Nonindicted 11 were actually exported to Vietnam and Thailand, etc., along with the purchase tax invoices, the list of individual tax invoices by seller, and the list of individual tax invoices by seller, and the false evidentiary documents prepared by Nonindicted 11, as if they were actually exported to Vietnam and Thailand, from around 23 times to September 4, 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted 13, evaded taxes by fraud or other unlawful act.

"2017 Gohap533 (Defendant 1)"

The Defendant is a person who, from January 15, 2007, actually operated the “Nonindicted Company 1” located in the Seo-gu, Gwangju ( Address 3 omitted), and “Nonindicted Company 12” located in the North-gu, Gwangju ( Address 4 omitted) from January 2, 2014, respectively.

1. Crimes related to Nonindicted Company 1

(a) Receiving a false tax invoice;

Around August 31, 2012, the Defendant received a tax invoice in the item column stating the amount of 23,947,000 won and the amount of supply in the name of Nonindicted Company 19, the Defendant received a total of 371,410,000 won, and a tax invoice in total of 27 Chapter, as indicated in the attached Table 5-1, from around December 31, 2015, when the Defendant received a false tax invoice in the name of Nonindicted Company 18’s representative Nonindicted Company 19, stating that no more goods were supplied than the actual goods supplied by Nonindicted Company 18 to Nonindicted Company 18’s office located in the Special Metropolitan City-gu Industrial Redistribution Center, Seo-gu, 2012.

(b) Submission of a list of total tax invoices by seller by false entry;

Around July 25, 2013, the Defendant submitted to the Government a list of total tax invoices by individual purchaser, stating that (business number omitted) Nonindicted Company 2 and purchase column total 3,447,200 won in total, and the supply value column in the trade name is KRW 13,47,200, even though there was no fact that the Defendant received more goods than the actual goods from Nonindicted Company 2, the Defendant was supplied. From that time to February 25, 2015, the Defendant submitted to the Government a list of total tax invoices by individual purchaser, including 1, total purchase price, KRW 11, total supply price, KRW 87,149,60, total supply value, and KRW 5, total supply value, as shown in attached Table 5-2, from that time to February 25, 2015.

2. Crimes related to Nonindicted Company 12

피고인은 ▷▷상회 등으로부터 허위 세금계산서를 교부받아 피고인이 실질적으로 운영하는 수출업체인 공소외 12 회사가 마치 해당 물품을 실제로 매수하여 베트남, 태국 등에 해당 물품을 수출한 것처럼 가장하는 방법으로 수출 관련 영세율 제도에 의한 부가가치세를 환급받기로 마음먹었다.

Accordingly, around March 7, 2014, the Defendant received an early zero-rate tax refund of KRW 117,081,160 in the name of Nonindicted Company 12 in the name of Nonindicted Company 12, as shown in the attached Table 5-5, from the time of having received the payment of value-added tax of KRW 4,609,630 from the account in the name of Nonindicted Company 12, as if he actually exported goods to Vietnam and Thailand, along with the false documentary evidence, as if he had actually been prepared to export goods to Vietnam and Thailand.

Accordingly, the Defendant evaded taxes by fraud or other illegal act.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal Facts】

"2017 Gohap364"

1. Statements made by Defendant 3 in the first trial records;

1. Entry of Defendants 1 and 2 in the first trial records; and

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 20

1. Each accusation, notification of false export declaration data, report on the closure of an investigation, and list of crimes;

1. Comparing Defendant 2 to purchase and collect export bills, the amount of export deposits, the amount of money received, and purchase and collection;

1. The export details of Defendant 2 corporation, the amount of export, the details of receipt of deposits for other dispatch, the details of purchase of bills of exchange for export and X-how off; and

1. A tax invoice and a value-added tax return for general taxable persons:

"2017 Gohap483"

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 21 and Nonindicted 22

1. Statements of Defendant 1 in part of the second protocol of trial;

1. The statement made by the witness Nonindicted 13 and Nonindicted 23 in the third trial record

1. A written accusation, a report on the closure of an investigation, and a list of crimes;

1. Electronic tax invoices, a list of total tax invoices by customer and seller, a value-added tax return, and details of financial transactions in Nonindicted Company 8;

"2017Gohap484"

1. Statement made by Defendant 1 in the second protocol of the trial;

1. Each written accusation, each report on the closure of the investigation into a tax offense and each list of crimes;

1. The report on the value-added tax of Nonindicted Company 10 and the list of total tax invoices by seller, tax invoices, export declaration certificates, flow table of refund of value-added tax, and unfair refund details;

1. The details of Nonindicted Company 1’s value-added tax return, list of individual tax invoices by seller, electronic tax invoices, account transaction details, and remittance of refunds;

"2017 Gohap533"

1. Statement made by Defendant 1 in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Each accusation, each written accusation for revision, each report on the completion of investigation, and the list of crimes;

1. 공소외 12 회사 수출대금 입금내역, 매입처 ▷▷상회의 대금거래내역 등, 세금계산서, 매입처별 세금계산서 합계표, 일반과세자 부가가치세신고서

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Inquiry reports on criminal records, etc., each written judgment, and investigation reports (a latest final and conclusive judgment attached to a suspect);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: (a) Articles 270-2, 241(1)(i) and 270-2, 241(1)(i) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 12159, Jan. 1, 2014); (ii) Articles 270-2, 241(1)3, and 241(1)(i) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 12013, Sep. 13, 2013; (iii) Articles 276(1) and 241(1) of the former Customs Act; (iv) Articles 270-2, 241(1) of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 12027, Aug. 13, 2013; (v) Articles 269(3)1, 241(1) of the former Customs Act; (v) Articles 10(2) and 2 of the Punishment of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

(b) Defendant 2 corporation: Each of Articles 297(1), 270-2, and 241(1) (the manipulation of the export price before September 13, 2013) of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 12159, Jan. 1, 2014); Articles 297(1), 270-2 subparag. 3, and 241(1) (the manipulation of the export price after January 9, 2014); each of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 12027, Aug. 13, 2013); Article 297(1), 276(1), and 241(1)(a) of the former Customs Act (Amended by Act No. 12027, Aug. 13, 2013); Article 297(1), Article 297(2), Article 29(1), Article 36(1), Article 41(1)1-2) of the former Customs Act

(c) Defendant 3: Articles 18 and 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act (each of the crimes at the time of sale, the violation of the Labor Standards Act that became final and conclusive on July 27, 2017, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoices) of the Criminal Act, etc.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: The sum of imprisonment with prison labor and fines prescribed in the offense of violating the Customs Act due to the smuggling of goods as stated in the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 3, and 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Article 278 of the Customs Act [the provisions concerning aggravation of concurrent punishment for fines as stated in Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to fines]; and Article 278 of the Customs Act [the provisions concerning aggravation of concurrent punishment for fines as stated in Article 38(1)2 of the Customs Act shall not apply to fines]

(b) Defendant 2 corporation: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 278 of the Customs Act / [Concurrent imposition of fines (with respect to fines, the provisions on aggravation of restriction on concurrence of fines in accordance with Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act shall not apply)]

(c) Defendant 3 company: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Article 20 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act [Concurrent imposition of fines (no provision on aggravation of restriction on concurrent fines in Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act shall apply to fines)]

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 1: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Additional collection:

Defendant 1: Article 282(2) and (3) of the Customs Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendants: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and defense counsel

1. The assertion;

(a) A violation of the Customs Act due to false declaration among the cases of "2017 High 364";

Attached Table 1-4 Nos. 4 through 9, 11, and 17 of the List of Offenses Nos. 1-4 to 9, and 17 are Defendant 1 on behalf of the owner of the goods at the request of the owner of the goods, and Defendant 1 was not aware of the actual export price because the owner of the goods

B. The receipt of false entries in Nonindicted Company 8’s purchase tax invoice related to Nonindicted Company 8’s case

Since the receipt of the purchase tax invoice was in charge of Nonindicted 13 by the above Defendant’s father, not Defendant 1, Defendant 1 was unaware of whether the above Nonindicted Company 8’s purchase tax invoice was false.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the violation of the Customs Act due to false declaration on the export price

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant 1 can be sufficiently convicted of having reported the export price to the customs house with knowledge of the actual export price of the goods for which the request for export by proxy was received. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

① From April 2012 to January 2017, Nonindicted 5, who was in charge of the business of entering documents related to export, purchase, and sale into electronic data processing while working as an employee of Defendant 2’s corporation, stated in an investigative agency that “The actual export price and the customs declaration price have been determined according to the circumstances and circumstances,” Defendant 1, the representative director, was directly determined, and the false declaration was made in accordance with Defendant 1’s instructions,” and that “The customs office reported the export price to the effect that it was the export price higher than the actual export price for the purpose of refund of value-added tax on the permanent export rate.”

② Defendant 1 also stated in the investigative agency that “On receipt of the order list stating the unit price of the goods to be exported from an overseas company, the domestic company orders the goods as indicated in the above list. Since the determination of the export price is determined through negotiations, the price is dynamic, and then (Defendant 1) was directly determined prior to 2014, and thereafter, the unit price was determined in a manner reported by the business team.” Defendant 1 appears to have been well aware of the actual export price of the exported goods because it was negotiations for the direct determination of the export price prior to 2014.

B. Determination as to the receipt of false purchase tax invoices related to Nonindicted Company 8

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant 1’s act of receiving the false purchase tax invoice by Nonindicted Company 8, along with Nonindicted Company 13, can be sufficiently found guilty. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and the defense counsel’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

① At this court, Defendant 1’s father, Nonindicted 13, stated in this court that “In order to repay the obligation due to the default of payment, Defendant 1 asked Defendant 1 to prepare a tax invoice for export only through the exporter,” and that “Defendant 1 was introduced from Defendant 1 to Nonindicted Company 9, Nonindicted Company 8, Nonindicted Company 11, Nonindicted Company 10, and Nonindicted Company 12, and only received (in fact, introduction for export) the said companies,” and that “the submission of a list of purchase tax invoices and the list of individual tax invoices by seller was directed and processed by Nonindicted 22, who is the employee of Defendant 2 operated by Defendant 1.”

② Defendant 1 also stated in this court that “the final objective was refund of value-added tax for export of zero tax rate, and received false purchase tax invoices for this purpose; hereinafter the same shall apply)” and “Nonindicted Company 8, etc., are simple parties to the business.” Ultimately, according to the aforementioned statements by Nonindicted 13 and Defendant 1, Nonindicted 13 and Defendant 1 would have been designed to export by using only their names without actually operating Nonindicted Company 8, and to refund value-added tax for zero-rate export and to repay the debt incurred due to the default of payment around 2010. However, Defendant 1 would have introduced Nonindicted Company 8, etc. to the said Nonindicted 13, even though he was well aware of the aforementioned circumstances by Nonindicted 13.

③ Nonindicted 22, an employee of Defendant 2, stated in this Court that “Nonindicted Company 9, Nonindicted Company 10, Nonindicted Company 8, Nonindicted Company 12, Nonindicted Company 12, and Nonindicted Company 11, before setting the recipient company of the tax invoice, have been entered in the part on the issuance of the tax invoice received with Defendant 1, and there was a fact that Defendant 1 was dealt with the receipt of the tax invoice and reported thereon to Defendant 1,” and that “Nonindicted 22, who is the business owner of Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 23, the business owner of Nonindicted Company 24, are aware of the fact that he received the tax invoice under the direction of Defendant 1 or Nonindicted 13” in this Court. According to each of the above statements, it is determined that Defendant 1 was also involved in the business of receiving the false tax invoice of Nonindicted Company 8.

④ Moreover, the crime of receiving false purchase tax invoices by Nonindicted Company 8 was committed at the Defendant 2’s corporate office operated by Defendant 1, and all of the false purchase tax invoices received as above were used for Defendant 1’s tax evasion.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant 1

(a) The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment: one month to four years and six months;

Fine: KRW 18,00,000 (= KRW 1,000,000) x 18 times for each fine:

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

Since each crime in the judgment is related to the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentencing guidelines shall not apply. Provided, That in order to determine the sentencing guidelines, the sentencing guidelines shall not apply.

○ Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders due to Illegal Refund

[Determination of Punishment] General Evasion of Evasion of Taxes (at least 50 million won)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Continuous and repeated crimes for at least two years.

[Extent of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor in an aggravated area: September to February.

* As a result of adding up the same kind of competition, the minimum sentence of 1/2 shall be reduced by the second step increase.

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and fine of 18,000,000 won;

The crime of this case is committed by Defendant 2, Defendant 3’s representative, Nonindicted Company 8, etc., which practically operates Defendant 2, and Nonindicted Company 3’s representative, submitted a false tax invoice and a list of total tax invoices by false seller to the government, and the value-added tax was evaded by abusing the export-related zero tax rate system. The crime of this case is very poor. The crime of this case is highly likely to be punished for a serious crime that undermines the fairness of tax justice and transactions, and the total supply price of the list of total tax invoices received or submitted by the Defendant is 1.9 billion won, and the amount of evaded tax is also 50 million won or more unfavorable to the Defendant

However, since each of the instant offenses committed by the Defendant is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, such as the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.), it is necessary to consider equity in the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time under the former part of Article 39

In addition, various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, method and circumstance after the crime, etc. of the defendant, and the sentencing criteria of the Sentencing Committee shall be determined as per the order.

2. A defendant 2 corporation: A fine of 234,00,000 won.

In consideration of the motive, circumstances, etc. of the crime of this case, the amount of fines for the violation of each Customs Act shall be determined by adding up KRW 1,00,000, and the punishment shall be determined as per the order.

[234,00,000 won = 1,00,000 won 】 234 times (=214 times in violation of the Customs Act due to manipulation of export price + 18 times in violation of the Customs Act due to false declaration of export price + 4 times in violation of the Customs Act due to smuggling export)]

3. Defendant 3

○ Scope of applicable sentences under the law: Fines of 50,00 KRW 5,568,89,368 5,568,89,368 = 18,562,97,895 note 5)

○ Determination of Punishment: Fines 180,500,000

The amount of fines for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act shall be determined by adding up the amounts of fines to 100,000 won in consideration of the motive, circumstances, etc. of the crime in this case.

[180,500,000 won = 100,000 won 】 1,805 times (328 times in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the issuance of false tax invoices + 1,477 times in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the receipt of false tax invoices)

Part of innocence (Defendant 1, and Defendant 2)

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) "2017Gohap364 (Defendant 1, and Defendant 2)";

Where anyone intends to export, import or return goods, he/she shall report to the head of the relevant customs office the name, standard, quantity and price of the relevant goods, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, and shall not acquire any property or property benefits or file a declaration by manipulating the price of the goods for the purpose of having a third party acquire

Nevertheless, Defendant 1 exported each of the export declaration numbers (number 5 omitted), (number 6 omitted), (number 7 omitted), and (number 8 omitted) of Defendant 1’s corporate office located in Goung-gun ( Address omitted) on March 20, 2015, Defendant 1 reported export declaration numbers (name 4 omitted), Defendant 1’s total export price of KRW 120,823,619,619, and Defendant 2688, including Defendant 1’s total export price of KRW 120,823,619, to Defendant 1’s corporate office located in Goung-gun-gun (name 4 omitted), and Defendant 1’s total export price of KRW 120,757,629, and Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 1’s total export declaration numbers of KRW 120,823,619, and Defendant 1’s corporate office around 2016 through 178, 16788, and Defendant 167.

(b) "2017Gohap482 (Defendant 1)";

The Defendant is a person who actually operates Nonindicted Company 9 established for the purpose of food export business (the representative of Nonindicted Company 26 in name) (the establishment of May 8, 201, and Nonindicted Party 25 who was the birth of friendly Nonindicted Party 25).

피고인은 2012. 8. 24.경 순천시 연향번영길 64에 있는 순천세무서에 세무대리인 ♤♤♤공인회계사사무소를 통해 공소외 9 회사에 대한 2012년 2기(7월 1일~7월 31일) 부가가치세 영세율 등 조기환급 신고를 하면서, 사실은 공소외 9 회사가 ♡♡♡♡○○북구대리점으로부터 공급가액 합계 36,363,635원 상당의 재화를 공급받은 사실이 없음에도, 마치 ♡♡♡♡○○북구대리점으로부터 공급가액 합계 36,363,635원 상당의 재화를 공급받은 것처럼 기재한 허위 매입처별 세금계산서합계표를 제출한 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2014. 4. 25.까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표 2-3 기재와 같이 총 12회에 걸쳐 공급가액 합계 729,437,167원 상당의 허위 매입처별 세금계산서합계표를 정부에 제출하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by false seller to the government for the purpose of profit-making 6).

(c) "2017Gohap484 (Defendant 1)";

The Defendant is a person who actually operated Nonindicted Company 10.

On September 25, 2012, the Defendant reported early refund, such as the zero-rate tax rate of general taxable persons, at the office of Defendant 2’s corporate office, using the Homebook, to the Gwangju Tax Office on February 2, 2012 (from August 1 to August 31), and submitted a list of total tax invoices by individual purchaser, stating that Nonindicted Company 10 was supplied with goods from Nonindicted Company 14, etc., even though Nonindicted Company 10 did not have been supplied with goods from Nonindicted Company 14, etc., submitted a list of total tax invoices by individual purchaser, stating that Nonindicted Company 10 was supplied with goods equivalent to KRW 46,702,206, from the supply price of goods from Nonindicted Company 14, etc. until January 22, 2016, from that time until January 22, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by false seller to the government for profit.

2. Determination as to "2017 Gohap364"

A. Part on the violation of the Customs Act in the separate sheet No. 1-6 No. 1 or No. 6

1) The part of the violation of each Customs Act listed in the separate list Nos. 1-6 1 through 4 of the annexed list of crimes is deemed to have been entered in duplicate, and there is no other evidence to prove that the violation of each Customs Act listed in the separate list of crimes Nos. 1-3 36 through 40 is related to the crime of violating the Customs Act.

2) The part of the violation of each Customs Act listed in the separate list Nos. 1-6 and 5 and 6 of the annexed list of crimes is deemed to have been entered in duplicate, and there is no other evidence to prove that the violation of each Customs Act listed in the annexed list Nos. 1-3 Nos. 41 and 42 was related to the crime of violating the Customs Act.

B. Part on the violation of the Customs Act listed in No. 1-6 No. 7 of the annexed crime sight table

Even based on the separate list 1-6 No. 7 of the crime sight table, Defendant 1, the representative director of Defendant 2, is obviously reported to the Gwangju Customs at KRW 9,597,408 of the export price while exporting BEVAE 17,80 kilograms to the Republic of Korea (English name 5 omitted) on January 13, 2016 under the export declaration number (number 9 omitted) on January 13, 2016, and there is no other evidence to prove that Defendant 1, the representative director of Defendant 2, was manipulating the export price while exporting the said goods.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, since each of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and decided not to disclose the summary of the verdict of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

3. Determination on the "2017Gohap482" and "2017Gohap484"

A. Relevant legal principles

Even if a list of total tax invoices is not required to be submitted, it is difficult to evaluate that a list of total tax invoices under the Value-Added Tax Act is submitted with the entry of the list of total tax invoices. Therefore, even if the part of the tax invoices is related to electronic tax invoices issued falsely, it does not constitute “any act of submitting to the Government by entering the list of total tax invoices by seller and by seller under the Value-Added Tax Act in a false manner” under Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2017Do14868, Dec. 28, 2017; 2017Do12650, Dec. 28, 2017).

B. Specific determination

1) According to the aforementioned evidence, among the false purchase tax invoices received by Defendant 1 as indicated in attached Table 2-1 and Table 4-1, the purchase tax invoices entered in the list of total tax invoices by seller listed in this part of the facts charged are pertaining to the amount of electronic tax invoices issued, and the details were transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service before the 11th day of the month following the end of the pertinent taxable period.

2) Examining the foregoing facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in the case of the portion of KRW 1,860,108,983 (= KRW 729,437,167 + KRW 1,130,671,816), which was submitted by Defendant 1 as indicated in this part of the facts charged, the act of submitting to the Government a false list of total tax invoices by seller under Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act does not constitute “an act of submitting to the Government a false list of total tax invoices by seller” under Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the acquittal is pronounced in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the acquittal is not publicly notified in accordance with the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is

Acquittal (Defendant 1)

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) "2017Gohap364";

(i) the issuance of false tax invoices;

No person may be issued or received a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services. Nevertheless, Defendant 1 issued and delivered a false tax invoice stating that the sum of supply values of goods equivalent to KRW 10,109,137,844, as stated in attached Table 1-1 from that time to February 27, 2015, even though the fact in Defendant 2’s corporate office, which was located in the former Special Self-Governing Group ( Address omitted), was not the fact that the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△△△△ (trade change to Defendant 3) provided goods, such as food, to Defendant 2, to Defendant 2, as well as a false tax invoice stating that the value of goods equivalent to KRW 40,791,636, which was supplied to Defendant 2, from that time, to February 27, 2015.

Accordingly, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice for profit-making purposes.

2) Receipt of false tax invoices

누구든지 재화 또는 용역을 공급하지 아니하거나 공급받지 아니하고 세금계산서를 교부하거나 교부받아서는 아니 된다. 그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 2012. 12. 4.경 전남 고흥군 (주소 생략)에 있는 피고인 1 운영의 피고인 2 법인 사무실에서 사실은 ▽▽▽▽▽▽(피고인 3 회사로 상호 변경)가 ◎◎◎◎ 첨단점으로부터 식품류 등의 재화를 공급받은 사실이 없음에도 마치 ▽▽▽▽▽▽가 ◎◎◎◎ 첨단점으로부터 공급가액 5,432,728원 상당의 재화를 공급받은 것처럼 기재된 세금계산서 1매를 교부받은 것을 비롯하여, 그 무렵부터 2015. 6. 30.경에 이르기까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표 1-2 기재와 같이 공급가액 합계 8,453,860,051원 상당의 재화를 공급받은 것처럼 기재된 허위 세금계산서 1,477매를 수취하고, 피고인 3 회사는 대표인 피고인 1이 위와 같이 허위 세금계산서를 수취하였다.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 received a false tax invoice for the purpose of profit-making.

(b) "2017Gohap482";

The Defendant is a person who actually operates Nonindicted Company 9 established for the purpose of food export business (the representative of Nonindicted Company 26 in name) (the establishment of May 8, 201, and Nonindicted Party 25 who was the birth of friendly Nonindicted Party 25).

1) Receipt of false tax invoices

On May 31, 2013, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice of the amount equivalent to KRW 34,149,090, as if the Nonindicted Company 9 was supplied with goods or services from the ▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△ having not been supplied with goods or services from Nonindicted Company 9, which was located in the office of Nonindicted Company 9, which was located in the ( Address 5 omitted) in the net city of KRW 5,01, as indicated in the [Attachment Table 2-1] between July 7, 2012 and July 31, 2014, as indicated in the [Attachment Table 2-1], as if the Nonindicted Company 9 was supplied with goods or services from Nonindicted Company 1,03,081,301, a false tax invoice of KRW 42 was issued in total 42 times as indicated in the [Attachment Table 2-1].

The defendant received a false tax invoice for the purpose of profit-making.

(ii) Submission of a list of total tax invoices by false suppliers;

On September 25, 2012, the Defendant reported early refund, such as the value-added tax rate, etc. on Nonindicted Company 9 through the office of ○○ Tax Office, which was located in 64, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Dolcheon Tax Office, the tax agent, and submitted to the Government a false list of total tax invoices by individual suppliers, stating that Nonindicted Company 3 was supplied with goods equivalent to KRW 80,732,318, total value of supply from Nonindicted Company 3, while Nonindicted Company 9 was not having received goods equivalent to KRW 80,732,318, from Nonindicted Company 3, and from that time until August 25, 2014, the Defendant submitted a false list of total tax invoices by individual suppliers during six times in total, as indicated in the attached Table 2-2, including the list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by false seller to the government for profit.

(c) "2017Gohap484";

1) Crimes related to Nonindicted Company 10

A) Receipt of false tax invoices

The Defendant is a person who actually operated Nonindicted Company 10.

On July 31, 2012, the Defendant received 87 false purchase tax invoices in total amounting to KRW 1,741,910,636 from the transaction partner from December 31, 2015, including that Nonindicted Company 10 was issued a purchase tax invoice, stating as if the purchase price was supplied with goods equivalent to KRW 1,284,090 from Nonindicted Company 14, although Nonindicted Company 10 was not supplied with goods from Nonindicted Company 14, even though it was not supplied with goods from Nonindicted Company 14, and that was issued with the purchase tax invoice in total from the transaction partner until December 31, 2015, as shown in attached Table 4-1.

The defendant received a false tax invoice for the purpose of profit-making.

B) Submission of a false list of total tax invoices by seller

On February 25, 2013, the Defendant reported early refund, such as the zero-rate tax rate of general taxable persons, at the office of the said Defendant 2, to the Gwangju District Tax Office on January 1, 2013 (from January 1 to January 31). Although Nonindicted Company 10 did not have received goods from Nonindicted Company 27, Nonindicted Company 10 submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller, stating that Nonindicted Company 10 had received goods equivalent to KRW 13,924,455, total value of supply from Nonindicted Company 27, from October 24, 2014, from that time until October 24, 2014, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller, stating that the goods equivalent to KRW 611,238,820, total value of supply from the transaction partner, as described in attached Table 4-2, were supplied.

Accordingly, the defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by false seller to the government for profit.

2) Crimes related to Nonindicted Company 11

The Defendant and Nonindicted 13 (Divisions of the Defendant) are those who actually operated Nonindicted Company 11.

A) Receipt of false tax invoices

In collusion with Nonindicted 13 on December 24, 2012, the Defendant received 51 falsely purchased tax invoices in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,457,691,52 in total from the transaction partner, as described in the attached Table 4-5, in total, 51 times between July 31, 2012 and April 31, 2014, even though Nonindicted 11 was not the fact that Nonindicted 28 was supplied with goods from Nonindicted Company 28, the Defendant received the false purchase tax invoices in an amount equivalent to KRW 64,295,522, as stated in the attached Table 4-5, in total, from the transaction partner, even though the Nonindicted Company 28 was not supplied with goods from Nonindicted Company 28.

The defendant received a false tax invoice for the purpose of profit-making.

B) Submission of a false list of total tax invoices by seller

In collusion with Nonindicted 13 on August 24, 2012, the Defendant filed an early refund return, such as the zero tax rate on general taxable persons, at the office of the said Defendant 2, through the tax agent’s office, and at the office of the said corporation, on February 2, 2012 (from July 1 to July 31) through the said office, Nonindicted 11 submitted a false list of total tax invoices by seller as if the supply price was stated by Nonindicted 15 Company’s 18,560,00 won from Nonindicted 15 Company, and Nonindicted 27 Company’s 70,181,062 won from the supply price of goods from Nonindicted 15 Company, and thereafter submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller, including the submission of a list of total tax invoices by seller from May 24, 2014 to May 24, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by false seller to the government for profit.

C) the name name name

No person shall make a business registration using another person's name for the purpose of evading taxes or evading compulsory execution.

Nevertheless, around April 2012, in order to operate a business for the purpose of evading tax as above, the Defendant requested Nonindicted 4, a transferor, to register the sales of Nonindicted Company 11 in the name of Nonindicted Company 11, a company entitled to divide the sales and make a report on the division of sales. Nonindicted 4 accepted the request and made a registration of Nonindicted Company 4 in the name of Suwon Tax Office around April 26, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant registered his business with another person's name for the purpose of tax avoidance.

(d) "2017 Highly 533";

The Defendant, from January 15, 2007, was actually operating “Nonindicted Company 1” located in Seo-gu, Gwangju ( Address 3 omitted), and “Nonindicted Company 12” located in Gwangju (Name 4 omitted) from January 2, 2014, respectively.

1) Crimes related to Nonindicted Company 1

A) Receipt of false tax invoices

Around September 30, 2012, the Defendant received a tax invoice in the item column with the false name of Nonindicted 30, the representative of Nonindicted Company 29, stating the amount of goods and supply as KRW 46,363,63, and the false tax invoice in the total amount of KRW 972,412,030 and KRW 47, as indicated in the attached Table 5-3, from around October 31, 2015, when the Defendant received the false tax invoice in the item column as if he did not have any actual provision of goods and services from Nonindicted Company 29, even though he did not have any provision of goods and services from Nonindicted Company 29.

The defendant received a false tax invoice for the purpose of profit-making.

B) Submission of a false list of total tax invoices by seller

In July 2013, even though the Defendant did not have been supplied with goods or services, the Defendant received three tax invoices consisting of 30,000,000 false tax invoices from ○○○ mining agency, and submitted to the Government a list of total tax invoices by individual purchaser, which entered (business number 2 omitted), in the business number column at the time of filing the final return of value-added tax by general taxable persons on July 25, 2013, 2013, the Defendant submitted to the Government the list of total tax invoices by individual purchaser, which entered (business number 2 omitted), in the trade name column 3,00,000, in the supply value column 30,000,000 won in the supply value column, and from around that time until January 21, 2016, the Defendant submitted to the Government a list of total tax invoices by individual purchaser as indicated in attached Table 5-4, total purchase price, 43, total supply value, 637,764,863 won, and total 27.

Accordingly, the defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by false seller to the government for profit.

2) Crimes related to Nonindicted Company 12

피고인은 2014. 1. 31.경 전남 고흥군 (주소 8 생략)에 있는 피고인 2 법인 사무실에서, 사실은 공소외 12 회사가 ▷▷상회로부터 재화를 공급받은 사실이 없음에도 ▷▷상회로부터 공급가액 45,724,545원 상당의 재화를 공급받은 것처럼 기재된 매입세금계산서를 발급받은 것을 비롯하여 그때부터 2016. 4. 29.경까지 사이에 별지 범죄일람표 5-6 기재와 같이 기재와 같이 총 47회에 걸쳐 거래처로부터 공급가액 합계 1,277,224,077원 상당의 허위 세금계산서 47장을 수취하였다.

The defendant received a false tax invoice for the purpose of profit-making.

2. Determination on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the name lending

This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 11(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 13627, Dec. 29, 2015); according to Article 22 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 3 of the Addenda of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 13627, Dec. 29, 2015), the statute of limitations is five years. However, this part of the indictment was instituted on July 25, 2017, when five years have elapsed since the completion of the crime.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged comes to the expiration of the statute of limitations, it is sentenced to acquittal in accordance with Article 326 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoice) due to the issuance and reception of false tax invoices and the submission of the list of total tax invoices by seller and seller, and violation of the Punishment

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 8-2 (1) (hereinafter “instant provision”) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) provides that a person who commits a crime under Article 10(3) and the former part of Article 10(4) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act for profit shall be punished by imprisonment for a limited term of not less than three years where the sum of the value of supply, or the value of supply, sale, or purchase (hereinafter “supply value, etc.”) entered in the tax invoice and the invoice by buyer and buyer is five billion won or more, and shall be punished by imprisonment for a limited term of not less than one year, if the sum of supply value, etc. is three billion won or more but less than five billion won (Article 2).

Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that each act of violation of Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act may be evaluated as a violation of one of the legal provisions of this case, such as when and at the same time and place relationship between the act committed for a single and continuous period under the name of the criminal committed for profit-making purposes, and the identity between the methods of the crime may also be recognized. If the sum of the values of supply stated in the document constituting the act is the amount prescribed in the legal provisions of this case, one of the offenses of violation of the legal provisions of this case may be established by covering the act. It does not constitute several crimes of substantive concurrent relationship by the name of the business owner solely on the ground that the person used multiple business names for committing the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2

B. In the instant case

1) According to the records, the following facts are acknowledged. On September 6, 2018, the Gwangju High Court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with labor for one year and for a fine of 400 million won (Seoul High Court 2017No184; hereinafter “instant final judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 7, 2018. The criminal facts recognized as the final judgment are as stated in attached Table 6. The above criminal facts constitute a crime committed by the Defendant, while substantially operating Nonindicted Incorporated Company 6, Nonindicted Company 7, and Nonindicted Company 8, while receiving a false tax invoice from around 2012 to 2014, and submitted it to the Government for a false list of total tax invoices by individual suppliers.

2) However, this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, the representative of Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, Nonindicted Company 9, Nonindicted Company 10, Nonindicted Company 11, Nonindicted Company 11, and Nonindicted Company 12, issued and received false tax invoices between 2012 and 2016, and submitted a false list of tax invoices by seller to the government. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is reasonable to deem that the facts charged and the facts charged of the final judgment of this case constitute one crime of violation of the legal provisions of this case, comprehensively covering the crime of a single and continuous criminal for profit-making purposes, and constitute one crime of violation of the legal provisions of this case.

① The Defendant is the representative of Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and both Nonindicted Company 8, Nonindicted Company 9, Nonindicted Company 10, Nonindicted Company 11, Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 12, Nonindicted Company 6, and Nonindicted Company 7 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 8, etc.”) are businesses operated by the Defendant.

② The Defendant’s act of issuing and receiving each false tax invoice, as stated in the facts constituting the instant final judgment, and the act of submitting a list of total tax invoices by seller is identical to the purpose of obtaining false tax invoices from Nonindicted Company 8, Nonindicted Company 10, Nonindicted Company 11, Nonindicted Company 12, Nonindicted Company 12, Nonindicted Company 7, and Nonindicted Company 6 in the course of operating Nonindicted Company 8, etc., for the purpose of unjustly receiving the disguised value-added tax as if they were supplied with goods and exported. The purpose, circumstance, and method of receiving false tax invoices from the Defendant or Nonindicted Company 13, etc. and collecting goods.

③ The facts charged in this part of the facts charged and the submission of a false tax invoice by seller based on the receipt of the false tax invoices and the act of submitting a false list of tax invoices by seller from 2012 to 2014 were concentrated. As can be seen, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged and the facts charged in the final judgment in this case are very closely related at time, and most of them were conducted at the office of Defendant 2 corporation operated by the Defendant, and the details of issuance and receipt of false tax invoices among the Defendant 3, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 7, which were operated by the Defendant.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a final and conclusive judgment, and thus, is subject to acquittal pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but inasmuch as it is found not guilty of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as stated in attached Table 2-3 and 4-3, which is a single comprehensive crime, the judgment of acquittal shall not be ordered separately from the disposition.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Song Ho-ju (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The indictment is written as “Nonindicted Company 8,” but it appears that “Nonindicted Company 12” is written as “Nonindicted Company 12.”

2) In principle, the crime of evading value-added tax is established for every six months of value-added tax for each taxable period (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Do382, Apr. 20, 2000).

3) In consideration of the motive, circumstances, etc. of the instant crime, the amount of fines for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by making a false declaration on the prices of each of the goods shall be one million won.

Note 4) Defendant 1, the representative of Defendant 2 corporation, exported 37 goods using each “(number 2 omitted) and (number 1 omitted)” for the normal export declaration number for two containers. It is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1, the representative of Defendant 2 corporation, has committed one crime per one export declaration number for one container.

Note 5) 5,568,89,368 = 18,562,97,895 won (total sum of supply values of Defendant 3 Company) ¡¿ 1/10 (value-added tax rate) ¡¿ 3 (limited).

(6) Of the summary of the facts charged as follows: (B) the case at issue 2017Kahap364 [the violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Delivery, etc.) due to the issuance and receipt of false tax invoices related to Defendant 3]; (c) the case at issue 2017Gahap482 (the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the receipt of false tax invoices and the submission of the list of total tax invoices by seller related to Nonindicted Company 9); (a) and (b) (the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the receipt of false tax invoices related to Nonindicted Company 10 and Nonindicted Company 11 and the submission of the list of total tax invoices by seller]; and (b) the case at issue (the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the submission of false tax invoices and the list of total tax invoices by seller related to Nonindicted Company 11 and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act related to the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act).

7) On the 8th trial date, the prosecutor explained that the entire charges of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by submitting a list of total tax invoices by seller and by seller and the violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Delivery of False Tax Invoice, etc.) are all inclusive crimes. Each additional indictment is not double prosecution, but it is the purpose of modification of the indictment as to the violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Delivery of False Tax Invoice, etc.).