The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The abstract of the grounds for appeal was actually supplied by the defendant;

Even if the supplier is not the F's G or H's I, it seems that the supplier is not the F's I but the defendant was aware of it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. The lower court determined that Article 11-2(4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act punishs the act of issuing or receiving a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services. This includes not only issuing or receiving a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services, but also issuing or receiving a tax invoice prepared by a person other than the actual supplier of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010). However, even in such a case, it should be proven that the Defendant received a tax invoice even though he was prepared by another person, other than the actual supplier, by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (a) type of business of the Defendant’s operation; (b) the instrument that the Defendant started the closed transaction with G and I; and (c) the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s finding that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged by G or the Defendant’s purchase from G and I; and (c) the Defendant’s purchase of the goods or services from G’s purchase; (d) evidence or evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

l.p. g., p.