The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”) was final and conclusive as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance, etc. of false tax invoices) (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”) in relation to the submission of a list of the separate tax invoices by a false purchaser, as shown in attached Table 2 of the lower judgment, while operating the J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”), and the lower court determined that res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment of this case extends to the Defendant on the grounds that the facts charged of this case is not only a crime of the above final and conclusive judgment but also an act before the pronouncement of the final

However, since the facts charged in this case and the facts charged in the final judgment of this case cannot be recognized as having the unity of the criminal intent, there are substantive concurrent relations, not the relation of a single comprehensive crime, and thus res judicata of the final judgment of this case cannot be deemed to affect the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the recognition of the number of crimes and the scope of res judicata, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant operated the said company as the representative director of E (hereinafter “E”) with the fourth floor of the building in Bupyeong-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City D. D.

No person shall submit to the Government any sale under the Value-Added Tax Act or a list of invoices by seller without supplying or receiving any goods or service by falsehood.

Nevertheless, on July 25, 2008, the Defendant intended to unlawfully receive value-added taxes from the subsidiary tax office located in Seocheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seocheon-gu, 227, and the fact that the Defendant purchased the goods from 11 companies, such as F, etc., and then deposited the goods price into the purchase office’s account, and then, returned the goods price to G, H, I, etc.