The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment in the original trial and permitted it by the court of the original trial, and there is no accusation by the head of the competent tax office on the changed facts charged without identity as

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the changed facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At each time E’s business owner, who engages in scrap metal transactions with a company that is operated by the Defendant for mistake of facts, transported scrap metal and gave notice to the other party to the transaction by the KG or K, etc., and the Defendant believed to do so, and only he/she was issued a tax invoice by remitting the price to the account under the name of each company.

Therefore, it can not be said that there is no intention to be supplied with tax invoices by supplying real goods or that there is no intention to the defendant at least.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Even if the facts charged of unfair sentencing are found guilty, the sentence imposed by the court below in light of the circumstances of the instant case is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative director of “D” corporation established for the purpose of selling scrap iron at racing-si C.

Any person who is obliged to receive the tax invoice shall not receive the supply of goods or services as prescribed in the Value-Added Tax Act, but shall not receive the tax invoice falsely.

Nevertheless, the Defendant purchased 321,770,50 won in scrap metal from E (F) on January 31, 2009 and received a tax invoice as if he purchased scrap metal equivalent to the same amount from G (H).

In addition, the Defendant included this, from around that time to June 30, 2009, three times in total, as indicated in attached Table D’s list of crimes.