The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) and the Defendant’s statement, etc., the Defendant operated

E It can be recognized that each sales and purchase tax invoice issued against G and F is not by a real transaction, but by a nominal capital flow.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that there was no supply of each goods or services between the Defendant, G, and F.

As it is insufficient to view the defendant as not guilty, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In addition to the intent of introducing an ex officio determination electronic tax invoice system, there is no obligation to submit a list of total tax invoices by seller with respect to the portion of issuing electronic tax invoices for which the details issued to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service are transmitted, and even if submitted, there is no essential entry in the aggregate of the tax invoices under the added-value Tax Act. According to the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, with respect to the portion of issuing electronic tax invoices transmitted to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by the 11th day following the end of the taxable period, the individual

In light of this, a list of total tax invoices was submitted with respect to the issuance of electronic tax invoices for which the submission of a list of total tax invoices is not required.

Even if it is difficult to evaluate the submission of a list of total tax invoices under the added-value-added tax-related Acts, and thus, even if the partial transaction concerns the electronic tax invoices issued falsely, the act of submitting a list of total tax invoices by seller under the added-value-Added Tax Act to the Government cannot be deemed as constituting “an act of submitting a false list of total tax invoices by seller under the added-value-Added Tax Act” under Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1628, Dec. 28, 2017). The court below and the court of first instance duly adopted and examined the evidence.