The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A person liable to deliver a tax invoice to an entrepreneur supplied pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, and further pay the value-added tax, shall be deemed to be a person who actually performs the transaction of supplying goods or services to a person who actually receives or is supplied goods or services from the entrepreneur, not a person constituting a nominal legal relationship with the entrepreneur who supplies or is supplied.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do4068, Jul. 22, 2010; 2008Do1715, Jul. 24, 2008). Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act punishes “the act of issuing or receiving tax invoices without supplying goods or services.”

This includes not only the issuance or issuance of a tax invoice but also the case where a person supplied with goods or services receives a tax invoice prepared by another person, other than the actual supplier of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010). The lower court acknowledged the facts based on the adopted evidence. The lower court found that the Defendant intentionally received a false tax invoice, even though he was merely constituting a nominal legal relationship, and was not actually supplied with scrap metal from X and AM, and found that he evaded each value-added tax by filing a return on the total amount of the tax invoice as an input tax amount, and found the Defendant guilty of the portion related to the name X and AM tax invoice in the instant facts charged.

In light of the above legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, but exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules