A. Defendant 1) The illegal Internet sports gambling site (hereinafter “E”) operated by Defendant 1 by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles (the point of evading value added) was operated in a way that the Defendant himself gambling with users.

Therefore, the Defendant’s operation of the instant gambling site is merely an gambling that does not create added value and thus cannot impose value added tax.

Even if the Defendant’s act of operating the instant gambling site is subject to value added tax, ① the standard of taxation on January 201 through the Z bank account in the name of the Defendant, J and P, which is the Defendant’s borrowed account, ② the standard of taxation on February 201 through the Z bank account in the name of the Defendant F and P, which is the Defendant’s borrowed account, ③ the standard of taxation on January 2012 through the Z bank account in the name of F, R, and S, which is the Defendant’s borrowed account (the amount calculated by the lower court).

(1) On June 21, 2018, the Defendant submitted a defense counsel on June 21, 2018: ① the amount of the user’s entry through the Z bank account in the name of 1,711,495,462 won, not the 1,711,478,278 won recognized in the original judgment; ② the amount of the user’s entry through the Z bank account in the name of 2012F, not the 28,021,345,540 won, not the 28,020,020,685,540 won, ③ the amount of the user’s entry through the Z account in the name of 2011, not the 13,141,868 won, 13,14,151, 1968 won, 206, 2016, 360, 1963, 250, 2016, 2963, 165.6.