In light of the fact that it is difficult to understand that the defendant did not ask for the reason when he withdraws a large amount of cash at the request of another person, it is difficult to understand that the defendant did not ask for the reason, that it is possible to see that the person who makes such request is requesting the withdrawal of cash due to illegal involvement in the illegal day, that the accomplice has withdrawn money through a close communication with the accomplice because he was considered to have deposited the disguised transaction fund and that the defendant has withdrawn money within several minutes after he deposited the funds, and it is obvious that the defendant had withdrawn money through a close communication with the accomplice. Although E testified in the court below that he testified in line with the defendant's vindication, E is denying his criminal act, and it is too big to receive 70,000 won in return for the withdrawal of cash, it is obvious that the defendant has been involved in the crime of receiving false tax invoices, such as E, and at least in the act of aiding and abetting the accomplice by withdrawing money.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that acquitted the defendant.

Judgment

Based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court determined that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, did not acknowledge that the Defendant, including E, knew or predicted the receipt of a false tax invoice by accomplicess, but did not have any other evidence to acknowledge it.

E and other accomplices are so-called so-called "exploitation enterprise"

or a disguised transaction with G, I, etc. without a real transaction;

There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the circumstances to issue a false tax invoice are the defendant, and rather, the witness E in the court below is the court of original instance.