The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the construction of this case is practically carried out by lending the name of the J and it is recognized that the defendant issued tax invoices under the name of the J, and that the act of delivering tax invoices issued by the defendant under the name of the third party constitutes the act of issuing false tax invoices in full view of the following: (a) where the defendant supplied goods, etc. under the name of the third party and issued tax invoices under the name of the third party; and (b) where he provided goods, etc. under the name of the third party, the act of issuing tax invoices issued by the defendant under the name of the J constitutes the act of

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 10(1)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides for punishment where a person obliged to prepare and issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act prepares and issues a false tax invoice. However, in the case of the Value-Added Tax Act, a contracting party who does not simply form a legal relationship between a contractual party and a person who supplies or receives goods or services, such as a person who delivers or delivers goods or provides services, etc. under a contractual cause, receives a tax invoice from the supplier, deliver the tax invoice to the supplier, and further, the person liable to pay the value-added tax is not a person who forms a legal relationship with the supplier or the supplier, but is a person who actually receives the goods or services from the supplier or actually provides the goods or services to the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003); however, it does not constitute an act of delivering the tax invoice by providing a false invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Aug. 1, 2008).