The defendant is innocent.

Ⅰ Summary of the facts charged

1. On October 31, 2010, the Defendant issued three copies of the supply value without supplying goods or services on three occasions in total, as shown in Appendix No. 1-3, from that time until December 31, 2010, without supplying goods or services on three occasions, as shown in Appendix No. 1-3, as if the Defendant supplied transit, despite the fact that the Defendant supplied goods or services to the Friju station at the Eriju station, the Defendant issued three copies of the false tax invoice, which is the cause of false tax invoice No. 600,000,000.

2. On June 23, 2010, the Defendant received five copies of the tax invoice equivalent to KRW 2,109,363,639 in total without being supplied goods or services on five occasions, from that time until October 30, 2010, as shown in the attached Table No. 4-8, as if he was supplied via the supply of goods or services from G Energy Co., Ltd., without being supplied with the goods or services from G Energy, the Defendant received five copies of the tax invoice equivalent to KRW 2,109,363,639 in total, without being supplied with the goods or services.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant did not supply or receive any goods or services for profit-making purposes, and issued or received a tax invoice which causes the total amount of supply value, etc. 3,536,636,366.

Ⅱ The summary of the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion is to issue a tax invoice by supplying actual oil to the Friju station, and to be supplied with the actual oil from G Energy and H Energy, and to be issued a tax invoice.

III. Judgment

1. Determination on the portion of the false sales tax invoice

A. We examine whether the Defendant supplied actual oil to the Friju station and issued the tax invoice. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court and examined by this court, i.e., the portion of the false sales tax invoice against the Defendant.