The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that Article 10(2) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 11210, Jan. 26, 2012) does not stipulate that the other party is “a person obliged to prepare and issue a tax invoice pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act” and thus, it does not require determination as to whether a person who supplied oil to the Defendants is a person obligated to issue a tax invoice pursuant to the principle of no punishment without law, i.e., a person who is registered as a taxpayer, but the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there is insufficient evidence proving that the supplier of oil to

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that Defendant A is the representative director of (ju) No. 103 of the building E, Changwon-si, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of marine petroleum products.

(1) The Defendant, from April 201 to April 201, has overall control over the foregoing company’s business as a person who purchased oil for vessel from around April 201, shall be issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act.

Nevertheless, on May 15, 201, the Defendant purchased oil for the ship from the person who was not in the name of the injured in the name of the ship at the sea located within five parts of the Busan Port, Busan Port, and did not receive a tax invoice in collusion with the above person who was not in the name of the injured in the name of the ship. From that time to December 30, 201, the Defendant purchased oil for the ship of 2,921,796,000 won from the person who was not in the name of the injured in the name of the ship at the same place at least 180 times until December 30, 201, and did not receive a

(2) Defendant B, the representative director of the Defendant, committed the above-mentioned violation in relation to the Defendant’s business at the above time and place.