The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Article 32(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that, in the event of the supply of goods or services, the person who is obligated to issue the tax invoice to the person who is supplied with the goods or services shall be “business operator”. In full view of the fact that ① Article 8(1) of the same Act provides that the “business operator” shall apply for the registration of the business operator (Article 8(1) and ② that the “business operator’s registration number and name or name” should be indicated in the tax invoice issued by the “business operator” (Article 32 subparag. 1 of the same Act), it is reasonable to view the “business operator” as limited to “business operator who has registered the business operator” as prescribed by Article 16(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013).

Therefore, as long as the name and trade name of sales that supplied marine oil to the defendant cannot be seen as a person who is obligated to issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act, and even if the defendant who received marine oil from him is not recognized as a person obligated to receive a tax invoice, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that a person who is obligated to receive tax invoices pursuant to the added-value-added Tax Act is not allowed to receive tax invoices as he/she conspired.

The term "B" (hereinafter referred to as "B") is a corporation that is established on February 12, 2009 and engages in oil sale or transportation business until December 24, 2015, and is the representative of the defendant.

On July 4, 2013, the Defendant used marine fuel [bunker fuel and ship fuel oil (marine fuel)] at the 5 wharf of Busan Port on July 4, 2013, the Defendant accounts for approximately 90% of the paid-in oil (Bunker-C, B-C), but the fact that the paid-in oil is too high, mixing the light oil with the light oil (Bunker-A, reduced by reduction).