The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The Defendant is the actual operator of the Daju station in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. A.

On October 25, 2009, the Defendant submitted a false list of total tax invoices, stating as if he was supplied with the goods of KRW 646,765,00, even though he had not received the goods or services from (ju) Geummmmchemical, when he received the preliminary return of value-added tax on the D gas stations at Incheon tax office located in 75, Incheon, Dong-gu, Incheon, Incheon, on October 25, 2009.

B. On June 2010, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer, stating as if he were supplied with the goods of KRW 371,99,000, even though he did not receive the goods or services from the State, in the Incheon Tax Office, located in the 75 Incheon East-gu, Incheon, Incheon, by filing a list of total tax invoices by customer, which was falsely entered as if he had received the goods or services from the State.

2. Determination:

A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not participate in the operation of the gas station since September 5, 2009. Thus, the defendant did not commit the crime as stated in the facts charged.

B. The Defendant is a person who was an employee of Emph Emph (hereinafter “organization”), a criminal organization (hereinafter “organization”).

F is a person who became the head of the organization before and after 2008 while engaging in large-scale pseudo petroleum sales business, and the defendant operated a small number of gas stations with other lighting staff in Incheon, etc. under the direction of F, etc.

During that period, the defendant had caused conflicts with F, etc. with regard to the distribution of profits from the operation of gas stations, and expressed his/her intention to withdraw from the organization around December 2008.

The defendant's legal statement (after the second trial date), the Seoul High Court's decision (12, 14 pages) in 2012No872 among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and the Seoul Central District Court's decision (7, 8, 18 pages) in 2012 and 2012 among the evidence on the defendant's side (7, 8, 18 pages) are appropriate.

(c)the first prosecutor’s examination of evidence is admitted as evidence;