A. As to the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) or the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to tax evasion, the Defendants did not register the business of the L company in the name of Co-Defendant A and did not keep and enter related books. In supplying pseudo petroleum, tax invoices related thereto were not issued. This constitutes “the concealment of transactions” rather than a mere failure to report or a false report, and constitutes active acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Article 11-2 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act”) and Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”) concerning the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act following the non-issuance of the tax invoices by Defendant B, C, D, E, and G refer to the entrepreneur who becomes the taxpayer regardless of whether he/she is registered as a business operator, i.e., the actual supplier of goods and services.

Nevertheless, the court below held that Defendant B, C, D, E, and G constitute a person who actually supplied goods.

Even if it is apparent that the L company does not constitute a person registered as a business entity under the Value-Added Tax Act, the Defendants failed to meet the requirements for the status required by the crime of violating Article 11-2(1) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and accordingly, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case which does not constitute a crime.