The Defendant did not receive a false tax invoice as stated in the facts charged.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s fact-finding and judgment are justifiable, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The Defendant stated in the lower judgment that “B (hereinafter “B”) contracted by Q Q (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) on March 2013, 2013 with respect to the construction work of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “the instant construction work”). Accordingly, Q was excluded from the instant construction work and carried out the remaining construction work directly with the subcontractor at the time of Q’s exclusion from the instant construction work, and the subcontractor did not know of the fact that “B (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) committed the instant crime as a result of the issuance of the tax invoice under the name that was the original contractor B.” and acknowledged the facts charged.

B. The Defendant also stated in the investigative agency that “B renounced the instant construction work and completely excluded from the construction work on October 2013 due to the dispute with Q.” Accordingly, there was no provision of services from the subcontractor. Nevertheless, the subcontractor received the tax invoice issued in the name of Q and applied for the refund of value-added tax.”

C. The written accusation prepared by the director of the Si interest office, the tax invoice issued by the subcontractor in the name B, and the contents of the instant construction contract and the subcontract are also consistent with the Defendant’s investigation agency and the court below’s decision.

Although the Defendant appears to have received a non-prosecution disposition from the prosecutor with respect to the instant case, the instant case was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor.