The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misapprehension of the legal principle) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of legal principles, since the time interval between the time of supply of goods and the time of the issuance of the tax invoice is disregarded, and the supply price in the past to the previous business entities does not constitute an issue of issuance of the tax invoice retroactively.

(A) The Prosecutor stated the guilty portion of the judgment of the first instance court in the petition of appeal or in the statement of grounds for appeal, and did not state specific grounds for appeal. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the conviction portion of the judgment of the first instance did not state the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing, and this part is not separately determined).

2. On October 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) issued one electronic tax invoice of KRW 50,000,000 of the value of supply as if he/she was supplied with goods or services from the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) without being supplied with such goods or services; and (b) issued one electronic tax invoice of KRW 24,30,000 of the value of supply as he/she was supplied without being supplied with goods or services from H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) on December 28, 2017.

3. The gist of the judgment of the court below is that “a person who issues a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying goods or services under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act” under Article 11-2(4)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010) refers to a person who issues a processed tax invoice without a real transaction (so-called data), and the relationship between the time of issuance of the tax invoice and the Value-Added Tax Act, etc., even though a real transaction, such as concluding a contract for supplying goods or services, exists.