1. On January 25, 2011, the Defendant submitted the list of the total tax invoices for false purchase, and on January 25, 2011, the Defendant submitted the list of the total tax invoices stating false purchase details in the form of e.g., the list of the tax invoices, as if he was supplied goods or services equivalent to KRW 51,272,00 from E, even though he did not receive any goods or services, upon filing the final return of the second value-added tax invoice for 2010 in e.g., the e., the e., the e.

2. The Defendant received a false tax invoice does not have received oil equivalent to KRW 27,963,636 from E.

Nevertheless, around January 18, 201, a tax invoice of KRW 27,963,636 was issued by the employees of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) in the above D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”).

In addition, the Defendant received a false tax invoice of KRW 490,509,092 in total in the same way as in the annexed crime list from around 201 to June 13, 201 by the same method as in the annexed crime list.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they were actually supplied and sold oil equivalent to the value of supply stated in the facts charged, and that they were merely E in data.

3. According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the Defendant is merely merely a material that the Defendant received a tax invoice, and that the Defendant lent money from F to E, but the Defendant did not present the details of the repayment of money to F, and that the Defendant did not prepare a letter stating profit distribution, borrowed money, etc. between F and F.

However, the defendant appears to have been supplied with actual oil and sold it, considering that the amount equivalent to the oil price actually supplied by the defendant from G and E was sold, and ② the defendant is considered to have sold it through F.