The lower court, on the premise that the F event site operation service contract of this case 2009, which the Defendant, the representative director of which, entered into with F, the Defendant Company E, constitutes a total fixed contract that can claim the amount stipulated in the contract as a matter of course, and on the premise that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone constitutes a total fixed contract that can claim the amount as stipulated in the contract, notified the Defendant that the employee in charge of the Organizing Committee of the victim

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant clearly expressed his/her intent to determine whether to execute a tax invoice or not. Furthermore, it is insufficient to view that the defendant conspireds with G, a general head of F event headquarters, a stock company E, with the intent of deceiving a staff member in charge of the Organizing Committee of the victim, even though he/she was aware of the fact that the above contract was changed to the actual cost settlement contract, and submitted a false tax invoice with the intent of deceiving the staff member in charge

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.