The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged, despite the fact that the Defendant sold via F in his personal qualification and did not deliver a tax invoice, is unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined as follows: ① the Defendant, known in the evidence of the lower judgment, issued and received a false tax invoice through the LAB and HH oil station; ② the Defendant was indicted for I and J with respect to the portion for which a false tax invoice was issued in the name of the LAB; ③ the EAF of the EAB claimed that the Defendant purchased oil equivalent to the actual same amount from the Defendant’s individual when the issue was the issue of receiving a false tax invoice from the LAB; ④ the Defendant personally supplied the EAS with oil equivalent to KRW 1.455 million to the EAB, and there is no objective evidence as to the part for which the Defendant supplied the oil equivalent to KRW 1.455 million to the EAB, as an individual qualification, was insufficient to recognize the charge that the Defendant sold the oil recorded in the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below is just in light of the fact that F, who received oil, has no evidentiary materials to deem that F, who paid oil to the defendant, has paid the oil price.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.