On March 7, 2012, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 26,442,00 of the supply value as if he had not been supplied with scrap metal from E, even though the fact at the above D office had not been supplied with scrap metal.

In addition, the Defendant was issued a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 573,379,820, respectively, as if he had not received scrap metal from E over 10 times as shown in the attached list of crimes from that time until June 4, 2012, as if he had received the scrap metal from E, respectively.

2. The facts recognized in a final and conclusive judgment of another criminal case related thereto in a judgment-based criminal trial shall constitute a flexible evidence, except in extenuating circumstances, but if it is deemed difficult to adopt the final and conclusive judgment of the relevant criminal case as it is in light of other evidence submitted in the relevant criminal trial, it may be rejected.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do15653 Decided June 14, 2012, etc.). Furthermore, the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial lies on the prosecutor, and the recognition of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735 Decided April 27, 2006, etc.). According to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, F was sentenced to imprisonment for one year with labor for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the Busan District Court on January 10, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 18, 2014, and the criminal facts of the above judgment are E.