A. The Defendant (De facto mistake) was supplied with oil equivalent to KRW 579,972,728 from H (hereinafter “H”) in the course of operating E, and was issued with a tax invoice, and accordingly submitted with the list of total tax invoices written thereon.

B. According to the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor (a factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle), it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant intentionally received a false tax invoice from N even though the Defendant did not actually receive oil from N.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant was supplied with oil from H but the shipper was “H”, and the place of destination was “E” did not submit a shipment slip. ② H stored the transit through the name of H in Ulsan oil storage from July 201 to August 201, and then the import or purchase of oil is not verified after the entire quantity of the oil was released (Evidence No. 96-101 of the record) (Evidence No. 96-101 of the record), ③ H was the prosecutor’s office that stated that “H was supplied with oil to the gas station, not to directly supply oil from N, but to the gas station,” and “H was supplied to the gas station by taking advantage of the evidence list No. 19, which was the actual operator of H, and the Defendant did not actually purchase the oil from the gas station to the gas station that was supplied to others.”