A. On January 25, 2014, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer with false entries, stating that he/she supplied goods or services to H in spite of the fact that he/she did not supply the goods or services at a Class-ro tax office located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu, Seoul, but submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer with false entries, stating that he/she supplied goods equivalent to KRW 302,363,636, and KRW 1636,364 to H.

B. On January 25, 2014, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices for individual suppliers by false entry, stating in J 32,727,272 won, (ju), 24,711,888 won, and 300,000 won in L, even though he did not receive any goods or services at the Class-ro tax office located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jongno-gu, Seoul, on February 25, 2013, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices for individual suppliers, stating in falsity that goods equivalent to KRW 32,727,272 won, and 24,711,888 are supplied.

2. In order to prove the facts charged of the instant case, evidence duly adopted and examined in this Court as evidence in order to examine the facts charged of the instant case can be viewed as three separate pages.

First, there was a statement in the police, the prosecutor's office, and the court of law by the defendant. The purport of the statement is that the defendant merely lent the name of G to the person "M", and it is entirely unaware of the operational details. Therefore, whether each of the tax invoices of this case is false or not.

Next, there are materials related to the accusation of the tax office as well as the accusation of the relevant tax office. The materials are merely tax invoices, financial transaction data submitted by the Korea CTR Bank, (State) transaction statements submitted by KK, etc., and the letter of completion of additional value investigation stating the public opinion of the public official belonging to the tax office as the paper that there is suspicion of processing transactions, and such evidence alone is reasonable that the list of each of the tax invoices in this case is false.