The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 31, 2013, the Defendant, as the representative director of D Co., Ltd., was issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act, as if he was immediately supplied with 480,140,090 won, even if he was not actually supplied with goods or services at the Defendant’s office located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, and at the Defendant’s office located in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and even without being supplied with goods or services from beer.

2. Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that "a person who does not supply goods or services and issues a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act" shall be deemed to mean a person who does the act of issuing a processed tax invoice without a real transaction (so-called data). Although a real transaction, such as entering into a contract to supply goods or services, etc., it shall not be deemed that the person intends to punish the case where the value-added tax is to be refunded without a real supply of goods or services by issuing a tax invoice in violation of the provisions of relevant statutes, such as the Value-Added Tax Act

Here, the fact that there is a real transaction, such as entering into a contract for the supply of goods or services, refers to a binding agreement between the parties to the transaction with the supply of goods or services, and there is a need for an agreement on the supply value, items, unit price, quantity, etc. of the matters to be entered in the tax invoice under Article 32(1)3 and 5 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 67(1)4 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Adde

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do655 Decided June 25, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11382 Decided November 15, 2012). The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant, as revealed by the record of this case, are revealed by such legal doctrine.