Around March 29, 2007, the Defendant filed a corporate tax return on the Namyang-dong, Seoyang-si. The fact was that the said E Company was supplied with goods such as general fine, etc. from the new agricultural partnership during the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. However, the Defendant submitted a list of individual suppliers’ invoices in 2006, stating a false statement as to the supply price of goods, such as general fine not exceeding KRW 320,015,00,000, from the said company, as it was provided with goods such as general fine not exceeding KRW 320,000.

2. The first police interrogation protocol against the defendant is inadmissible and admissible as the defendant denies its content.

In addition, it is difficult to believe the contents of the witness F’s statement in the second protocol of trial consistent with the above facts charged as the actual operator of E-stock company in light of the contents of witness G and H’s respective statutory statements. Other prosecutor’s evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant is the actual operator of E-stock company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, according to the contents of each legal statement of witness G and H, the actual operator of the E company is not the defendant but the F.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the above judgment shall be publicly announced under Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act. It