A. On July 2, 2008, around November 26, 2008, the facts charged seems to be written in writing.

In the above “E” office, the fact that the F operator purchased waste Dongs, etc. from G, even though he did not purchase the waste Dongs, received a tax invoice of KRW 8,112,300, as if he purchased the waste Dongs, etc. from F operator G, and thereafter received a tax invoice of KRW 1,387,217,378 in the same way as the value of supply in the same manner as the value of supply between October 10, 208 and October 10, 2008, respectively;

B. Around September 1, 2008, the office of “E” received, respectively, a tax invoice of KRW 184,540,000 of the supply value as if he purchased waste Dong, etc. from H operator, even though he did not purchase waste Dong, etc. from H operator, and received a tax invoice of KRW 533,122,90 of the supply value by the same method seven times from that time until December 12, 2008, as shown in the attached list of crimes (2).

2. According to Article 11-2(4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the act of issuing or receiving a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services is punished. This includes not only the act of delivering or receiving a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services, but also the case where a person being supplied with goods or services receives a tax invoice prepared by another person who is not the actual supplier of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010). However, even in such a case, it is different from the actual supplier of the defendant.