2018Gohap74 A, Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties)

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

Delivery, etc. of letters)

C. Violation of the Foreign Trade Act

1.(a)(c) A;

2.2.B

3.2. C.

More than a record (prosecution) and a subordinate police officer (public trial)

Attorney Seo-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Park Jong-young and Masia (for the defendant A)

January 30, 2019

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

Parts of innocence

1. Part of the facts charged in the instant case concerning the so-called "market transaction"

A. Summary of the facts charged

1) Of the instant facts charged, each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoices) due to the submission of the list of total tax invoices by false seller, the submission of the list of total tax invoices by false seller, the issuance of false sales tax invoices by false seller,

No person shall issue or be issued any value-added tax or tax invoice under the Act without being supplied with goods or services, and then submit to the Government a false list of total tax invoices by seller or seller.

Defendant A and its affiliated companies (hereinafter referred to as “E”) were bound by Defendant B and C to receive and issue false tax invoices in order to create appearance as if there was purchase and sale of the most reliable transaction between E, its affiliated companies, and D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) through the computerized system of an accounting information system (hereinafter referred to as “SAPP purchase”) under the name of “c sales and strategic purchase” in the E’s strategic planning office for the purpose of maintaining the external size of E and facilitating the stock price management and financial institution loans.

A) On May 4, 2010, the Defendants conspired to receive false purchase tax invoices and submits false purchase tax invoices on D offices located in Ulsan-gun F, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun on May 4, 2010, the Defendants received 3,640,303,80 won from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”), and submitted 26,207,929,929,106 won in total as indicated in the separate list 1-1-22 from June 18, 2008 to August 31, 2012, and submitted 10-4,000 won in total, as stated in the separate list 1-1,5-22 from G, etc., to 18 times in total, entered the false purchase tax invoices equivalent to 17,100 won in total, 207, 201-410 to 214,210-14,205.

(B) the issuance of false sales tax invoices and the submission of false total tax invoices;

In collusion with the Defendants at D offices located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, on March 23, 2010, the Defendants issued 22 false sales tax invoices equivalent to KRW 34,090,964,047 in total supply value as if they were supplied goods or services from March 23, 2010 to July 26, 2012, including issuing one false sales tax invoice as if they were supplied goods or services in an amount equivalent to KRW 743,18,750, although they were not to have supplied goods or services to E, and submitted 22 copies of false sales tax invoices equivalent to KRW 12,51 to January 25, 2010, including the issuance of one false sales tax invoice from March 23, 2010 to July 26, 2012.

2) Of the instant facts charged, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties) against Defendant A and the Foreign Trade Act

The Defendant separately stored raw materials purchased as ‘ Strategy Purchase' in the warehouse (such as white fluor, a white fluor, a high-priced fluor, a high-priced fluor, a bad fluoral balance, waste fluor, etc.) under the name of so-called ' Strategy Inventory'. The Defendant manufactured high-priced products using strategic inventory, made false sales performance as if they were exported from abroad and used them for refund of customs duties, etc., by manipulating import prices as if they were high-priced goods, and received money from E by manipulating import prices as if they were high-priced goods.

(a) Anyone who violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties) shall be prohibited from being refunded customs duties

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on April 24, 2007, filed an application for the refund of customs duties with the Ansan Customs office located in the Dong-dong, Ansan-si, Dong-si. On February 28, 2007, the Defendant received a refund of KRW 4,524,878,970,970 in total amount of customs duties over 28 times in the same manner as shown in the attached Table 4 of Offenses Act, by submitting an export declaration certificate and an import declaration certificate, etc., related to imported raw materials, as if the goods were not manufactured using imported raw materials and were manufactured using high-priced goods even though they were not manufactured using imported raw materials, and received a refund of KRW 241,802,640 from the Ansan Customs by submitting an import declaration certificate, etc., related to imported raw materials, as if they were the high-priced goods.

B) A trader violating the Foreign Trade Act shall not manipulate the export or import price of goods, etc. for the purpose of foreign exchange concealment.

Nevertheless, on January 21, 2011, the Defendant, at the K branch of the J bank in Ansan-si, a member-si, and the fact, at the K branch of the J bank in Ansan-si, would manipulate the import price as if E imports of high-priced safe goods, thereby paying USD 176,220 as an advance payment for the goods, as well as at the same time, from June 25, 2012, the Defendant, as shown in the [Attachment List of Crimes No. 5], imported high-priced goods of USD 44,929,729 at a total amount of 27 times as of June 25, 201, thereby manipulating the import price of the goods as if E imports high-priced goods of USD 44,929,729.

3) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (False Tax Invoice Issuance, etc.) regarding Defendant A

No person shall issue or issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with any goods or service, and then enter a list of total tax invoices by seller and by seller in falsehood and submit it to the Government.

The Defendant, by manipulating the computer of SAP ERP for window dressing accounting, intended to submit a list of total tax invoices by seller in order to make appearance into appearance as if there were the purchase and sale of the most circular transaction between E, its affiliated companies and M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”).

A) false purchase tax invoices and false list of total tax invoices

On March 4, 2010, the Defendant received false purchase tax invoices of an amount equivalent to KRW 49, in total 57,973,118,79 won from P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”) over 49 times in total, as shown in [Attachment 6-1] No. 6-1 year from March 4, 2010 to June 5, 2012, although M did not have received goods or services from G, as if M received goods or services from G, the Defendant received false purchase tax invoices of an amount equivalent to KRW 49,357,00,00,000, from October 24, 2008 to January 25, 2011, and submitted the false purchase tax invoices of KRW 57,973,118,79,000 to P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”). From March 4, 2010 to June 25, 2011.

(B) the issuance of false sales tax invoices and the submission of a list of false sales tax invoices by customer;

On March 17, 2010, the Defendant issued 32 false sales tax invoices equivalent to 25,461,620,470 won of supply value as if he/she supplied goods or services to E over 32 times in total, as stated in the following No. 6-2 year-2, No. 5 to June 5, 2012: (a) from January 19, 2009 to July 25, 2010, the Defendant issued 32 false sales tax invoices equivalent to 25,461,620,470 won of supply value as if he/she supplied goods or services to E; and (b) from January 19, 2009 to July 25, 2010, entered the total supply value of goods or services in the attached Table 6-2, No. 1259,126,821, and a false list of tax invoices at the district tax office having jurisdiction over each tax base.

B. Summary of the Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion

1) As indicated in attached Table 1-1, the Defendants submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller as shown in attached Table 1-1 and received each purchase tax invoice by customer, and submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer as listed in attached Table 1-2, and recognized the fact of issuing each sales tax invoice. However, each transaction pertaining to the total tax invoices or the total tax invoices listed in attached Table 1-1 and 1-2 is related to the purchase and sales in charge of the strategic purchase teams in the E Strategy Office, and is not the purchase and sales of the accounting information system or the actual disguised stock of wastes, such as the National Tax Service’s assertion by investigation agencies, but is not the purchase and sale of the existing raw materials or products. Accordingly, the Defendants submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer without supply of goods or services, or issued and received the sales, purchase, and purchase tax invoices.

2) Defendant A recognizes the fact that Defendant A imported goods as indicated in the attached list 5, as indicated in the annexed list 4, and exported goods as indicated in the annexed list 4, and received customs duties. However, the export and import goods listed in the annexed list 4 and 5 are related to the export and import in existence of the strategic purchasing teams in the Escop planning room, and there was no manipulation in the import price as if they were imported of high-priced safe goods, even though they were imported with safe goods without goods value as alleged by the National Tax Service and other investigative agencies, and the export goods subject to refund of customs duties do not cover the price as if they were manufactured using the imported raw materials even if they were not high-priced goods.

3) As indicated in attached Table 6-1, Defendant A submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller and received purchase tax invoices, as shown in attached Table 6-2, and submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer as listed in attached Table 6-2, and recognized the fact that each transaction pertaining to the total tax invoices or the total tax invoices in attached Table 6-1 and 6-2 was issued, respectively. However, each transaction pertaining to the total tax invoices or the total tax invoices in attached Table 6-1 and 6-2 is related to the purchase and sales in charge of the strategic purchasing teams in the E Strategy Office, such as the National Tax Service’s assertion, and is not the purchase and sale of the processed accounting information system or the actual disguised of waste, but the purchase and sale of the raw materials or products actually existing. Accordingly, Defendant A did not submit a list of total tax invoices by seller or by customer without the supply of goods or services, nor issued and receive the sales, purchase, or tax invoices.

C. Determination

1) Details of the facts charged

According to the records and arguments of this case, it can be recognized that this part of the facts charged is specified as follows.

A) On September 18, 2012, E was unable to settle a bill of exchange, and the decision of commencement of rehabilitation was rendered on October 22, 2012. Under the rehabilitation procedure for E, Q accounting corporation appointed as an inspector was assessed as having little value on a significant portion of the E’s inventory assets. Accordingly, creditors, including R Bank, etc. were assessed as being too low in the liquidation value of the E’s inventory assets, and raised an objection. Around January 5, 2013, S appointed as a custodian of E instructed Te to confirm the strategic inventory which was offered as movable property to the creditors who were in charge of the business related to the rehabilitation procedure. T was classified as “the so-called strategy extraction from SAP to SAP and other products or inventory, other than products ordinarily known in the E’s business division, as “the strategy extraction from SAP to SAP”, and prepared a list of witnesses, “ Chapter 28, 285, 286, 386, 288(1) and 38(1).

B) On June 2013, Busan Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation of 200.6.27.6.6.6.27, 2013. The so-called strategic inventory to Busan Regional Tax Office’s investigators on June 28, 2013. 20.6.6.6.6.25.6.6.6.6.3.6.6.3.6.6.6.3.6.6.6.6.6.3.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.20.6.6.6.6.201.6.6.30.6.6.201.6.6.27.6.201.31.36.24.201.

C) On July 25, 2013, January 13, 2014, X, which was in charge of G’s accounting, was investigated by the Busan Regional Tax Office, and deemed to be unrelated to textile or subdivision resin mainly handled by G at the request of the investigator of the Busan Regional Tax Office, that X was in charge of processing transactions and false transactions during G’s purchase and sale, and that it was irrelevant to the textile or subdivision resin mainly handled by G, and classified and arranged “the details of G processing and sale” (No. 564, No. 41 through 48, No. 72 through 77, No. 47, No. 464, No. 565, No. 5, No. 6,77, and No. 285).

D) As seen earlier, the Busan regional tax office: (a) concluded that all of the tax invoices or tax invoices issued, received, and submitted in connection with the purchase, sale, and purchase indicated in the “M ERP Strategic Sales List and Detailed Statement”, “M ERP Processing Sales (2008-2012), “M ERP Strategic Purchase Table and Detailed Statement”, and “M ERP Processing Purchase (2008-2012)” were false; and (b) filed a criminal charge based on the aforementioned facts charged, the Busan regional tax office filed a criminal charge against the prosecution against the Defendant, etc. on the basis of the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Taxation) with respect to the issuance, receipt, and submitted tax invoices or aggregate tax invoices in relation to the purchase, sale listed in the MERP StrategiP Purchase List and Detailed Statement (attached Table 6-1) and the list of total tax invoices listed in the MERP Strategic Sales Table and Detailed Statement (attached Table 6-2).

E) Under the integrated information system of the Korea Customs Service, the Busan Customs Office entered the certificate No. 4, which was seized by the public officials of the Busan Regional Tax Office, with the export clearance records of E, G and M related to the above "E ERP processing sales (2008 to 2012)" (234) and the "illegal Refund (235)" (the above No. 234,235 were the same as the attached crime No. 4). Based on the comprehensive information system of the Korea Customs Service, the Busan Customs Office entered the import clearance records and payment records of E, G and M in relation to the above customs clearance records, and determined that the false customs clearance records and payment of the raw materials were stated in the above export declaration No. 246 (the above export declaration No. 234,235) and the pertinent customs clearance records and payment records were the same as the above export declaration No. 2466 (the above export declaration No. 2466).

F) The Busan regional tax office: (a) integrated and integrated the data submitted by T and X and the accounting slips received from the office of the bookkeeping agent of G, and organized them as shown in D’s Strategic Transaction List (SP No. 48); and (b) prepared a crime sight list by means of obtaining confirmation from Defendant C and B (In investigation record No. 4:21-35, 98, 13, 424, 426, 427). The Busan regional tax office determined that all of the tax invoices or tax invoices issued, received, and submitted by D in connection with the so-called strategic transaction were false; (b) filed a complaint against Defendant B, C, etc. with the prosecution for violating the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice), and the prosecutor classified them as a strategic transaction in the separate column from the crime sight list attached to the above accusation and instituted a public prosecution as stated in the above facts charged (1).

(ii) evidence relations and key issues;

See or consistent with this part of the facts charged, each statement or part of the Z, AB, X, AE, AF, AH, AJ, AM, AP, Q, ASS, AS, Y, C (except for those denied contents) 22; hereinafter referred to as "Evidence No. 24" 6) Strategy and Sale No. 75, 26, 46, 26, 36, 26, 46, 26, 46, 26, 46, 25, 46, 36, 36, 46, 46, 46, 46, 36, 46, 46, 36, 46, 25, 36, 46, 46, 25, 25, 21, 25, 21, 25, 21, 266, 36, 46, 36

The gist of the above evidence is as follows: (a) the Defendants managed so-called strategic inventory (hereinafter “instant strategic inventory”) 'the so-called strategic inventory 2 by means of computerized stock in fact in the E Strategic Planning Office or by means of computer-based misrepresentation of goods, such as wastes, etc.; and (b) E and its related companies caused purchase or sales transaction without supply of goods or services (hereinafter “instant strategic transaction”); and (c) E, the relation of E, E, M also submitted a false receipt or issuance of tax invoices and a false list of total tax invoices for the instant strategic inventory, as if they were supplied or supplied with goods, which are not actually nonexistent as shown in attached Table 1-1, 1-2, and attached Table 6-1, 6-2, and each subparagraph of the attached Table 6-2, and there is no value of the goods to be exported by submitting an import declaration form using the attached Table 4 in a way that there is no value of the goods imported as if they were imported in the instant strategic inventory; and (c) Defendant A received an import declaration form of goods using the attached list 4.

As above, this part of the facts charged on the strategic inventory of this case is premised on the premise that all of the facts charged are merely an article with no actual existence or no value. Thus, in the following cases, it is proved without reasonable doubt that the strategic inventory of this case is actually nonexistent or merely an article with no value. It is determined as to whether this part of the facts charged can be fully supported.

3) Evidence inadmissible as evidence

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 317(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a statement made by a person other than a defendant shall not be admitted as evidence unless the statement is made voluntarily (Article 317(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of denying the admissibility of evidence of a statement made under a dangerous condition that causes or is likely to cause a false statement is to prevent in advance the statement itself from causing misjudgments because it does not fit the substantive truth, and it is likely to infringe on the fundamental human rights of the person who has made a statement. As such, if a dispute over the voluntariness exists, the court shall prove that the prosecutor does not prove reasonable and specific facts to suspect the voluntariness, and if the prosecutor fails to prove the removal of the doubts of voluntariness, the evidence of the statement shall be inadmissible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do3234, Apr. 10, 1998; 2004Do517, Jan. 26, 2006).

(B) AA’s statements to investigative agencies;

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances recognized by the records and arguments in this case, the Busan Regional Tax Office’s protocol of statement (No. 300, 468, 506) dated August 7, 2013, and the Busan Regional Tax Office’s protocol of statement (No. 301, 467, 505) dated August 16, 2013, there are questions about the Voluntary nature, and there is no proof to resolve the question, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence.

(1) On March 25, 2014, AA made a statement to the prosecution investigator at the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, and to the public official of the Busan Regional Tax Office, on the part of the statement made to the prosecution investigator at the Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office, and made a statement to the effect that "any portion of the electronic tax invoice, which is not a real transaction, was made, was written in a conclusive manner," and "the products listed in the Strategic Inventory, were written in the manner that there was a doubt about whether they are not a fake inventory, but a doubt about whether they are not a fake inventory," and "the products sold through strategic transactions, which are logistics companies, were written in a way that they were written in a conclusive manner, was written in a way that they were written in a way that they were in a way that they contain a doubt about whether they were not a fake inventory," and it is clearly explained that the statement was written in a way different

(Investigation Records 20No. 3661 pages). In addition, AA made an inquiry to the above Prosecutory investigator, “I asked to conclude that it is a tax invoice that is not a real transaction in the Busan Regional Tax Office,” “I traded fake products, and the inventory goods also wanted to make an inquiry by concluding it in the form of a fake product, but it was already recognized as a fake transaction, but 2 division was already recognized as a fake transaction, and the statement was written differently from their own intent because I stated that I stated that the statement about the instant strategic transaction in the Busan Regional Tax Office was based on a conclusive question of the public official of the Busan Regional Tax Office (No. 20, No. 3662 pages).”

(2) In addition, in this Court, AA stated in this Court that, with regard to the background of the reversal of the above statement, it was impossible to say that "I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say, "I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say, "I would like to say, I would like to say that I would like to call at the Busan Regional Tax Office, and that I would like to call at the Busan Regional Tax Office, and that I would like to call at the same time because I would like to promptly get out of the situation, I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to call at that time, and that I would like to call as accomplice if I would like to accept it." The statement that I would not have a tax invoice for the strategic transaction of this case was forced by a public official of the Busan Regional Tax Office, and that I would like to call at the same time." The statement that I would like to say that I would like to be a fake tax invoice that does not have a real transaction is a witness that is forced by a public official of the Busan Regional Tax Office.

(3) On August 7, 2013 and August 16, 2013, at the end of the statement of the Busan Regional Tax Office, the statement of the Busan Regional Tax Office as of August 7, 2013, states that each investigator is asked for a preference. This is also an element that may cause doubts as to whether the investigator did not exercise the pressure against AA in the course of making the statement.

(4) As seen below, AB and AF also make a statement concerning the instant strategic transaction in the Busan Regional Tax Office is a statement that was made in a blank atmosphere or that was made under the pressure that it would be bound as Defendant A, and therefore support the above AA’s statement.

(C) AB investigative agency’s statement;

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances recognized by the records and arguments in the instant case, the Busan Regional Tax Office’s statement (No. 311, 556), which was August 19, 2013, and the Busan Regional Tax Office’s statement (No. 66,558) dated December 29, 2013, as well as evidence to the extent that it is possible to resolve the question point, is concerned with each other’s discretion, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence.

(1) At this court, AB added approximately 30 to 40 minutes prior to the due date of the investigation by the National Tax Service. At that time, the first term "AC created Scom on Burland and concealed the degree of 80 million won. It is time to raise an influence that "I will not find it at a national level," and the next one is one person who continues to make an investigation, and "I will not easily speak." The other person is also the cooperation in this tax investigation. I would like to cooperate with this investigation. I would like to end up with the witness and end up the examination. If I would like to know that I would not have made an oral statement, I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know it.

(2) In addition, at this court, AB stated in this court that “I would like to make and deliver every day since I would like to make a false classification of this case’s strategic transaction “I would like to make a daily production and supply of P or AW.” (5 pages of the record of the examination of witness AB),” and on September 15, 2017, the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office stated that “I would like to make an abnormal transaction of items that are not treated at ordinary times by the National Tax Service,” and stated that “I would issue and receive a false tax invoice, such as that I would not issue and receive a false tax invoice (3 rights 1446 pages of investigation record),” and stated to the effect that the statement in Busan District Public Prosecutor’s office was different from their intent to make a statement.”

(3) As seen earlier or below, AA and AF are statements made at the Busan Regional Tax Office on the instant extec transactions, and they are statements made under the pressure that they would be bound by Defendant A, and they are supported by the above AB’s statements.

(d)a statement made by AF investigative agencies;

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the records and arguments in the instant case, the Busan Regional Tax Office’s statement (No. 306, 516, 668) dated September 2, 2013 about AF has a question of voluntariness, and there is no proof to the extent that the question is resolved, and thus, admissibility is inadmissible.

(1) The AF stated in this Court that "I would like to record the contents different from what I stated. At that time, I would not have any inevitable situation at that time. I tried to detain, for example, whether I would or not I would like to do so," and that I would like to continue to hold this ceremony. The words "I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say, "I would like to say, I would like to say, I would like to say that I would like to say, "I would like to see why I would like to say, I would like to say," and "I would like to say, I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to be bound by "I would like to say that I would like to say I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to be a material of this case because I would like to say because I would like to say that I would not "I would like.".

(2) In this Court, AF’s inventory held by an investigator at the time of investigation of the Busan Regional Tax Office on September 2, 2013 is all defective goods. AF is a waste, waste, waste, or waste.

The statement is made to the effect that the investigator's statement on the strategic transaction of this case was affected by the pre-determined conclusion in advance, such as stating that the statement was "(10,20 pages of the witness AF)" and without the process of showing an individual trading list. It is a strategic sale. It is a false transaction. It was confirmed that it was a false transaction (10,20 pages of the witness AF).

(3) As seen earlier, AA and AB make a statement about the instant strategic transaction at the Busan Regional Tax Office stated that it was under the pressure of an investigating official, and support the above AF’s statement.

E) The part of the Statement of Busan Regional Tax Office dated June 27, 2013 of the statement of T investigative agency on the part of the statement of T in Busan Regional Tax Office, "The strategic stock" means that "a fact that the head of the AY procurement team has traded raw and secondary materials which are almost valuable in order to make sales a disguised transaction by means of high-priced de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto, during the process of ascertaining the facts or circumstances of the A president's corruption for at least the executives and employees of the team team leader" (20 right 3270 pages of investigation record) refers to "T is the content of the investigation record" (48 pages of the record of the witness examination), so the defendants did not agree to such evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4044, Nov. 12, 2004).

F) On November 9, 2017, the statement of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office of Seoul, on the part of AS's statement in the AS investigation agency's statement, "The strategic inventory is known to be re-exported the previous inferior goods and returned goods, or to be disguised with inventory assets by packaging the wastes, such as products and raw materials, even if they were packed. The part "I believe that the normal products, etc. were stored in the front where the AZ was stored at the time of the investigation, but later, they were discarded in the Z, etc. (26th right of investigation records)" in the part "(280 pages of investigation records) is the statement or the specialized statement, and there is no evidence to deem that the defendants did not agree to such evidence, and that the Defendants satisfied the requirements of Article 316 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do95614, Apr. 14, 2006).

(iv)Evidence that is difficult to believe;

A) Relevant legal principles

Even if the admissibility of evidence does not reach the extent that it is denied because it did not comply with the procedures prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act while collecting evidence against a person other than the defendant, it is difficult to recognize the reasonableness of an investigation in light of the significance and purpose of the existence of a criminal justice procedure aimed at identifying the substantive truth and guaranteeing fundamental human rights by summonsing a person other than the defendant and hearing a statement and preparing it in the protocol, and thereby aiming at guaranteeing the fundamental human rights, in a case where there is room for false intervention in the process, there is a special circumstance that there is an objective steam or circumstantial fact to support the credibility of the statement statement to acknowledge the credibility of the statement statement.

In addition, in light of the principle of public trial-orientedism and the purpose of the hearsay rule, where a person other than the defendant gives an oath and gives a statement different from that made by an investigative agency on the trial date, there is objective data to support the credibility of a free statement made in an open court through a teaching examination, denying the credibility of perjury, and taking the statement made in an investigative agency as evidence in an open court. In such a case, if it is not limited to the abstract judgment of credibility, and if there is no obvious reason for the difference in the statement, it is the principle that a free statement made in the court should be added to the free statement made up of the burden of perjury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1650, Aug. 20, 2015).

B) Specific determination

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances that can be recognized by the Health Team, the records and arguments of this case, etc., it is difficult to believe each of them in light of the Z, AA (excluding those without admissibility as mentioned above), AB (excluding those without admissibility as mentioned above), T (excluding the parts without admissibility as mentioned above), AC, X, AE, AG, AI, and Defendant C’s respective statements, and the part concerning the strategic stock and strategic transactions of this case, are either made by a simple abstract observation or by inducement by an investigation agency. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the report on the current status of the E Strategy Inventory (C No. 486) is also difficult in light of the testimony of AG and AY as mentioned below.

(1) As seen in Section C. 1 of the facts charged on the instant strategic inventory, this part of the facts charged is specified on the basis of the adjusted data on the instant strategic inventory by T and X. As seen earlier, the data on the instant strategic inventory organized by T and X is not a specific process of confirmation as to whether the inventory in question is inventory made by the computer processing or merely a non-value-free waste, but it is merely a data classified on the ground that it is a non-ordinary raw material or product, or a product that is not treated on a regular basis or a product that is not well-known. Nevertheless, the investigative agency presented the above data to T, AB, T, AB, X, AE, AE,G, AI, and Defendant C, and the instant strategic inventory is merely a product inventory or a product without value-free value, and the instant strategic inventory was made with the statement that the instant strategic inventory was a processed transaction conducted without the supply of goods.

(2) A legal statement, etc. in an investigative agency to the effect that the statement of the instant strategic inventory and strategic transactions is based on a conjection or by the inducement of an investigative agency

(A) From this legal point of view, T. 1 strategic inventory is classified as one of the most valuable goods for convenience, and it is classified as one of the goods actually known to it by B, and there was no subjective judgment at the time of the preparation of B’s strategic inventory list. It was objectively verified as a false inventory or there was no specific confirmation as to whether it was defective or not, ② before the dishonor, there was no initial entry as to the contents of the strategic inventory. ③ On March 11, 2014, the strategic sales was made not by the president but by using a false high-value product, but by using a false high-value product in accordance with the computer system. The part of the testimony of Busan Customs Office, which was made by B, was the most valuable goods that were not produced in the E.S. 2, which was the most valuable goods that were not produced in the E. 7, which was the most valuable goods that were purchased by the E.M. 2, which was the fact that there was no false inventory description or other falsified goods that were not produced in the E.M.

(B) From this court, X did not have to separately verify whether there was any product or raw material or not with respect to the items submitted as classified as the instant strategic transaction, and ② on July 25, 2013, the part of the Busan Regional Tax Office’s written “no fact that there was any actual storage of the items that would have been purchased through processing” was not in charge of verifying the entry. ③ In the above written statement, the materials used by the company were 10,000 won, and the unit price of the materials used by the company was 10,000 won. The processed goods were ordinarily 50,000 won to 1,50,000 won, even if the unit price was 1,50,000 won or more and even were 1,50,000 won or more.”

(4) On March 20, 2014, the statement of Busan Customs Office stated that the part of "the items listed in the G Processing Purchase and Sales Details (No. 564) of the G is no commercial value, and that G exported or imported by pretending that it was a high-priced product while exporting or importing goods that are not value-added goods," was an answer as above because G was simply a product not traded normally by G, and that "A imported goods without value to deduct G's funds to Hong Kong, and made the most import transaction as if it were imported goods of high-priced value" in the above statement of statement 6 stating that "A, as if it were imported goods of high-priced value after importing goods of high-priced value, without any special reason, was an answer based on the written lawsuit that was spread after the dishonor (the witness witness examination record of X).

(C) From this legal point of view, 1. 5. The Busan Regional Tax Office’s statement on July 24, 2013, 201, 2. 1. 2. 5. The 2.00 Busan Regional Tax Office’s gross sales statement, "No real entry into the domestic market in connection with the strategic trading of this case." However, it is not confirmed that there was no fact of delivery of this portion (37°3812 pages) because of the fact that there was no fact of delivery, and at the same time, the 3. 4. 5. 6. 6. 6. 3. 1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 3. 1. 3. 4. 1. 4. 206 . 3. 3. 4. 1. 3. 4. 3. 4. 1. 206 . 3. 4. 3. 3. 3. 4. 2. 3. . 4. 2. 2. 3. . 3. 3. 4. . . . 4. . 1. . . . . 4. . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . of . .. . . . of the . . . . . . . . . . .. . of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ...................................... ................................ ................................................ ....................................................................................................................................

(D) From this legal point of view, AC did not use the word "crypt transaction" during the period of his service in M, and ② The answer of Busan regional tax office to the effect that the strategic transaction of this case was a false transaction is not confirmed as the investigator believed to be a false transaction because of the fact that there was a white powder or defective goods without value on the strategic inventory of this case, and it is not true a false transaction. ③ The classification of "cypt inventory sheet prepared by T in Busan regional tax office" is not based on whether it was an item instructed by the defendant A, and the other criteria are not applied, ④ The tax invoice No. 6-1-22 or a list of total tax invoices No. 1-62 or 4) of the attached list of crimes No. 62-2 and No. 30 of the attached list of crimes, and that there was no false statement in the attached list No. 1-63 of the Incheon regional tax office to the effect that the witness stated that the goods of this case were an inferior goods that were exported to AU, and that it was an inferior 3 of the same portion of the defendant's.

(e) At this court, AA respondeds to the statements of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, and confirmed the Z while setting the product name, raw material distribution ratio, etc., and issued and received the tax invoice, it was difficult to say that the statement of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office at the time of making the statement at the Busan District Prosecutors' Office on October 31, 2014 is the contents of the statement at the Incheon Prosecutors' Office at the time of making the statement. However, at the time of making the investigation, it was difficult to say that the statement "whether it is not appropriate to continue to do so" in such sense, "I want to leave this place soon." Accordingly, I want to obtain the recognition of the match and to make it possible to make the witness's statement "A" as a witness to be examined.

(f) In this Court, AE made a statement about the issue of strategic transactions in Busan Regional Tax Office on September 3, 2013, that "it was not a strong atmosphere at the time of investigation by the National Tax Service, but at the time of investigation, it was not well-known that "at the time of investigation, an investigator of the National Tax Service asked questions to a witness on the premise that "at the time of investigation by the National Tax Service, it was confirmed to a certain degree of fact" or "at the time of investigation, it was not possible to ask questions to a witness," but it was not well-known, but simply answers or answers according to an investigator's question, and ② as to "the part in charge of issuing or receiving a fake tax invoice", it was not the same as "the one in which he/she stated that he/she was in charge of issuing or receiving a fake tax invoice," but as to "the one in which he/she stated that he/she did not know about the amount of a fake tax invoice to a low amount of 10% of the total strategic work," and it was not known to the 4th of the inventory work.

(G) In this court, F stated in the Busan regional tax office that the statement to the effect that the strategic stock, strategic transaction was false inventory, and false transaction was pressured by the investigator of the Busan regional tax office, as seen earlier, not only because the statement was made by the Busan regional tax office to the effect that the strategic stock, strategic transaction was conducted by the investigator of the Busan regional tax office, but also that there was no other separate management by specifying part of the strategic sales at the time of serving as G director from the entire inventory (9,11 pages of the witness examination record).

(h) In this court, among the statement of Busan District Prosecutors' Office dated July 7, 2015, it is merely a statement that "it was true that E, in the account book, was placed on the books, that "it was taken out from a foreign country to a foreign country and stored again in the inventory warehouse in the same quantity as it was stored in the inventory warehouse", and that "it was confirmed that Defendant A and B embezzled company funds after E's default, it was not lost in the investigation agency in the status of the suit that he embezzled company funds." The phrase " Strategy Inventory" was written to the effect that it was a concrete idea based on the answer that it was not done in the investigation agency before the default, and that it was stated that it was after the default (the witness witness examination of AI, the record page 12, 14 pages).

(i) At this Court, in the Busan Customs Office's statement of March 24, 2014, with respect to the part "" that "the particulars entered in the export goods are supplied with domestic raw materials from the purchasing team and made them in the manufacturing method instructed by the defendant A, it is not clear whether the goods are domestically produced or imported, but whether they have been stored in the Republic of Korea or not, and ② " there is a fact that a product without value in the process of processing and export trade has been made in the process of manufacturing", it is not known that there is no value in the goods, but it is personal thought only in the process of mixing them simply without normal process at BF factory, and (3) as to the part that "the raw materials are not used for the manufacturing method of the goods", the portion that "the goods are not similar to the raw materials for the production of the goods," the contents of which are "the manufacturing method of the goods are not similar to those of the 2G 2G 20G ," and the contents of which are not identical to that of the 2G 2G w w w w me.

(j) In this court, Defendant C, at the first half of 2014, recognized that strategic transactions were both processed sales and purchases, and at the Busan District Prosecutor’s Office, strategic transactions were actually conducted, but at the Busan District Prosecutor’s Office, BH supplied B through G was a processed sales and thus making it impossible to use the transaction. However, the above statement was made by the National Tax Service’s meeting, and it was because Defendant C had a good appraisal against Defendant A and B (17, 19 pages).

(3) Circumstances that conflict with the statements made by investigative agencies that correspond to the facts charged

(A) The circumstances that the Z did not enter the combination in the SAPP at will.

AY은 이 법정에서, "AC나 Z가 배합표를 임의로 짰다고 하는데, 자재코드는 같지만 여러 배치표에 같은 제품이 있는 것이 있고, 재고잔량을 0으로 만들기 위해 임의적으로 선택하는 부분이 있으나, 배합구성 자체를 임의적으로 짜는 것은 없고, 같은 품목이라도 자재코드가 다를 수 있는데 실제로는 같은 품목이지만 다른 자재코드를 가지고 임의로 가지고 왔을 수 있다. 피고인 A이 지시한 배합에 대하여 제대로 완료가 됐는지 항상 보고하고 컨펌을 받았다."고 진술하는 점(증인 AY에 대한 증인신문녹취서 33~36쪽), AA도 이 법정에서 AY이나 AF으로부터 SAP ERP 입력에 필요한 매출금액, 단가, 제품의 배합, 매출처 등이 기재된 메모를 받았다고 진술하는 점(증인 AA에 대한 증인신문 녹취서 27, 31쪽), Z도 이 법정에서 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 전략재고에 관한 SAP ERP 입력에 관하여 AA 이 모두 금액을 지정하여 지시하였고, 매달 발행할 매출총액만 정해준 적은 없었다고 수사기관에서의 진술을 번복하면서, AY으로부터 SAP ERP 상의 가상의 창고에 재고를 넣어 놓았으니 그것을 가지고 '0'이 되게 배합 입력하라'는 지시를 받았다고 하여 실질적으로 배합비율의 지시를 받았다는 취지로 진술하는 점(증인 Z에 대한 증인신문 녹취서 57쪽), Z가 수사기관에서 임의로 배합을 짰다고 진술하였던 BI 제품의 경우, 가장 중요한 원재료인 BJ은 25%로 배합비율이 고정되어 있는 것이고, 자재내역 중 배치번호만 다르거나 일련번호만 다른 것은 실제로는 물성이 유사한 화학물이므로 BK, BL, BM~BN 사이에서는 재고잔량을 Okg으로 맞추는 방법으로 배합비율을 달리 하더라도 배합비율을 임의로 지정하는 것이라고 보기 어려운 점(증인 AY에 대한 증인신문 녹취서 32, 33쪽, 수사기록 37권 3775쪽) 등을 종합해보면, Z가 SAP ERP 상에서 이 사건 전략재고에 속하는 제품을 배합하여 생성 · 입력한 재고가 화학제품에 대하여 잘 알지 못하는 Z가 임의로 정한 배합과 자재에 기초하여 가상으로 만들어 진 것이라고 보기는 어렵다.

(B) In full view of the circumstances in which products and raw materials included in the strategic stock of this case were actually produced or are likely to have been put into production, AG, under the direction of Defendant A, has produced products containing "DP" into "BO" or "BP" under the direction of Defendant A, and all raw materials used in the production of ‘DP' were produced in the form of ‘BP' and the name of the product in the form of ‘BP'. At the time of the production of the product, the raw materials in the process of the production of the product are not almost less than 1 mron ( several mrons) but it appears that the product were actually produced or sold at the time of the production of the product at the time of the production of the product at the time of 6 malphy, but it appears that there was a complaint at the time of the production or sale of the product at the time of the production of the product at the 1st malphy, and that there was a false production or sale of the product at the time of the production or sale of the product at the 2nd.

(C) Circumstances in which the distribution of the instant strategic stock could have been transferred

AF stated that there was no entry or receipt of the tax invoice without actual movement of the goods in this Court (8 pages of the examination record of the witness AF), that AHE operated BS corporation (hereinafter “BS”), and that AHE stated that the strategic inventory of this case was actually deposited and released and carried out the business between warehouses in accordance with Z or AC’s instructions (7,8 pages of the examination record of the witness AH), and that AY stated that A made an order for logistics movement by linking the departments producing the strategic inventory of this case to BS where the production of the product was completed (20:3687 pages of the investigation record), and that AA also made a statement that it actually carried out the business of carrying out the strategic inventory of this case, which is imported under the direction of AY by the investigative agency, and that it actually carried out the business of carrying out the business of carrying out the inventory of each of the instant case (36.6) under instructions of BS, each of the above inventory list (166.6).

(D) Details of import clearance for DP business

The Defendants asserted that only BT and BU in the DP business inventory is the de facto prote, and that the inventory of other ‘DP', such as BV, BW, and BX, is not the de facto prote, but the investigation agency has conducted an investigation on the premise that all of the DP business inventory is the most fake, and according to the import declaration letter on the DP business, the import declaration was subject to the tariff rate of 7106.10-0000, which is the tariff classification code for the end of 7106.10-000 only for B and BU, and the other items were confirmed to have been subject to the customs duty rate of 3206.49-90000, which is not the internal fee, coloring agents, etc., and the customs duty rate of dP business (the investigation record No. 9834,537, 200, the investigation record No. 9837,53737).

(4) Determination of credibility of the report on the status of the E Strategic Inventory

The report on the current status of the E Strategic inventory (net 486) is a document prepared by TG and AY’s statement and completed the front part of the E’s management manager, stating that E was in disguised transaction of raw and secondary materials which are almost valuable for sales disadvantageous to E from the purchasing team, but, as seen in paragraph (5)(b), the E’s manager has tried to evaluate the value of the E’s inventory assets at a low price of the E’s inventory value and enhance the possibility of rehabilitation. The AG states that it is not meaningful that there is no material after the entry into the E’s computer system. (38 pages of the record of the examination of witness AG), and AY does not have any fact that it has made a false transaction of raw and secondary materials that are not valuable for the manager by disguised the fact that Y made a disguised transaction by means of a high-priced market.

In full view of the fact that high statements were made and the investigation agency made a consistent statement with the same purpose as the above legal statement, the contents of the report on the present status of the above E Strategy Inventory against this point are difficult to recognize credibility.

5) Determination on the remainder of evidence

In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed through the records and pleadings of this case, since the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is merely an article with no actual existence or no value of the strategic inventory of this case, it is insufficient to conclude that the tax invoice issued and received with respect to the transaction of the transfer of this case and the list of tax invoices therefor were issued, received, and submitted without supply of goods or services. In addition, among the strategic inventory of this case, the price of imported goods as shown in the attached Table 5 was adjusted as high-priced, or it was not manufactured using the raw materials imported from the exported goods as shown in the attached Table 4 among the strategic inventory of this case, and it is insufficient to conclude that the imported goods were not manufactured using the raw materials among the strategic inventory of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove this differently.

A) The flow of policy sales and related data prepared by the Z was merely prepared by the Z for personal reorganization in the course of performing the duties of the Z Strategic Purchase Team (33 pages of the witness examination record). In light of the Z’s legal statement as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the above data as materials that expressed false and processed transactions. Even in light of the entry of the Z’s electronic tax invoice and specification of transactions related to strategic sales (658) submitted by the Z, even if the same product appears to be the E from the E to the BY, AW (hereinafter referred to as “AW”), the Z (hereinafter referred to as “BZ”), the Z (hereinafter referred to as “BZ”), and the flow and flow of the sale from G to the CA, the CB, and the CC, it is difficult to conclude that the sale from the E to the E product sale falls under the same category, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the sale falls under the E category and the E category.

In addition, the policy sales flow of the above July stated that “D additional collection charges are compensated due to a CD tax investigation,” and this is a transaction falling under attached Table 1-2 No. 27, and that, in light of Defendant C’s legal statement (2 pages of Defendant C’s reading book for Defendant C’s interrogation) that “D will take over the long-term stock of D” and Defendant C’s investigative agency (195 pages of investigation record), it is difficult to readily conclude that the tax invoice issued by D was false with respect to the sales of CE listed in attached Table 1-2, No. 27, 27, in order to compensate G for the amount of taxes collected by D.

B) On January 11, 2013, an investigation report prepared by Q accounting corporation appointed as an inspector in the rehabilitation proceedings for Q accounting corporation and a survey report on E, stating that "E created a team (PE2, Film2) for processing (PE2) and falsely included the cost of sales and sales (PE2, Fil2)," and the investigation report dated March 29, 2013 following the reinspection of E inventory (PR 2059 pages) managed "E had a window dressing accounting for the past inventory," and "Clim inventory for such inventory." The strategic inventory was partially stored in the DP factory, and most of the AX storage materials were stored in the AX warehouse, and the strategic inventory was stored in the packaging of defective goods and products returned in the past, or in the packaging, Potasia, Potasia, and Pota wastes were also recorded in the packaging list at all as one of the raw materials (TM 14).

However, in full view of the following circumstances, as seen earlier, comprehensively taking account of the process of classifying the strategic inventory of this case, the circumstances that conflict with the statements made by investigation agencies that correspond to the facts charged, and the records and arguments of this case, the above investigation report and investigation statement are deemed to reflect the intent of the receiver and executive officers and employees to enhance the possibility of rehabilitation to E by lowering the value of the inventory assets by lowering the liquidation value of E by lowering the liquidation value of the inventory assets, and ② the remainder of inventory except the inventory that can be delivered to reduce the liquidation value as above is calculated by arbitrarily evaluating the inventory value, and ③ it is difficult to conclude that there was a process of specifically confirming the ingredients, use, etc. of the strategic inventory of this case in the process of the inspection for reinspection of the inventory assets. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the strategic inventory of this case was actually nonexistent or merely an article without any value solely on the basis of the above investigation report and investigation statement.

(1) The head of the E Accounting Team, as the team leader of the E Accounting Team, provided data necessary for the investigation report on January 11, 2013, 2013 to the investigating committee, shall be in this Court; “The first stock of the account book is evaluated as inventory value; “The inventory that cannot be supplied now has evaluated as 10% of the book value and assessed the liquidation value by discretionary decision; and at the Defendant’s request that the value of the inventory should be lowered in order to reduce the liquidation value; “The inventory list (the order No. 478, 479, 480) shall be prepared and submitted to the Q Accounting Division in order to determine the inventory value of the remainder of the business except for the IT project (the inventory value of which is lower than the liquidation value even if it was a long-term inventory, but it was not lower than the purchase cost, and all of the long-term inventory assets last six months have been recorded as a witness (the witness witness’s witness examination, 1024%, 19% of the CF).

T also stated in this court that it was aware that the liquidation value higher than the rehabilitation value and that it was trying to revise the report (29 pages of the examination record of the witness T), and AI also stated that the DP business products were not well aware of the inventory status and details of the DP factory inventory status and (480) in this court, and that they were excluded from the subject of inventory assessment by stating that they would not participate in the production team as the strategic inventory (10,12 pages of the examination record of the witness AI), and that it did not intentionally recognize the inventory value of the strategic inventory at the time of the preparation of the investigation report, support the aforementioned testimony of CF, which is supported by the CF.

(2) CF은 이 법정에서, 2013. 3. 23.자 조사의견서 작성을 위하여 2013. 3. 19.부터 2013. 3. 20.까지 실시된 2차 재고실사에서 E 직원들, 조사위원들, 채권자인 CG, R은행 관련자들과 함께 구미공장, DQ공장, AX공장을 방문하였는데, 2차 재고실사 당시 재고가 어디어디에 있는지만 둘러보고 왔던 기억이 있고, 그게 폐타이어 가루인지 내부에 뭐가 들어있는지 이것을 다 뜯어보거나 한 기억은 없으며 공장별로 20~30분 정도만 소요되었다고 진술하였다(증인 CF에 대한 증인신문 녹취서), T도 이 법정에서, 위 2차 재고실사 당시 현장에서 폐타이어칩, 불량 글래스필터, 무엇인지 모르는 흰색가루를 현장에서 육안으로만 확인하였다고 진술하고 있고(증인 T에 대한 증인신문 녹취서 18쪽), AH도 이 법정에서, 2013. 3.경 실지조사 당시 마대자루에 담겨있던 재고를 푹 찔러서 눈으로 보니 "어 이게 은이 아니네", "어 그러면 이것은 그냥 쓰레기네" 이런 식으로 CG, R은행 관련자들이 이야기하는 것을 들었다고 진술하고 있다(증인 AH에 대한 증인신문 녹취서 17, 18쪽).

In addition to the above circumstances, when CL with specialized knowledge in the field of chemistry appears to be the body in this Court, it stated that it is not the color of metal from the flag in black paper, and that it cannot be distinguished from the deflag in the form of chemical substance (24,25 pages of the examination of witness CL), a large number of DP trial products were imported from internal fee, not from the deflagr, coloring agents, etc. as seen earlier, and the co-rating method using the closed chip is registered as a patent, and Defendant A also stated that the closed chip was used in the waterproofing process in view of the following facts: (i) Defendant A’s written record of the examination of Defendant A, Defendant A, and evidence No. 103, submitted by counsel, etc.).

(3) In this Court, AY states that PE marketing 2 teams, FILM marketing2 teams, U applications are not virtual business groups for false sales, and that the defendant A made it for the purposes of commercializing the existing business sector with respect to technology development, operation, and purchase (50,51 pages of a witness AY), CF also has classification from PE2 teams in this Court for internal cost management, and FILM2 teams were excluded from the relevant business sector (5 pages of examination of the witness), in light of the fact that there is no difference between the defendant and the PE2's bonus and indirect sales of the PPE 2's bonus and indirect sales of the PPE 2's bonus and indirect sales of the PPE 2's team, but it is difficult to conclude that there is no difference between the plaintiff and the defense counsel's bonus and indirect sales of the PPE 2's bonus and indirect sales of the PPE 2's team.

C) Results of the component analysis report

(1) According to the investigation report (No. 201), analysis report (No. 211), investigation report (No. 6) by the Busan Customs office (No. 265), and analysis report by the Busan Customs office (No. 266,267), the CJ, BPK, and BT collected samples from a warehouse located in AX on March 19, 2014, and April 25, 2014. The CG, BG, which was incorporated into the Busan Customs office without going through customs after the import declaration, is a pro rata powder powder containing a small amount of non-nets, and the fact that the BG, which was incorporated into the Busan Customs office without going through customs, was an organic covering the verte color on the back of the white paper in the Ps. C. C., the main ingredient of the Ps. C., and the A.I.D., which was created by the AX, al.

However, since the remaining inventories, other than BT, were imported from the beginning to the end with 0.04 km and color, it is natural that the ingredients are not detected, and the price may be different depending on the size of an euthanasator (28 pages of the examination record of the witness AG, 17, 18 pages of the examination record of the witness CL). Thus, even if the ingredients were not detected, it cannot be concluded that they are not high-priced safe products. BT used in the above analysis report is collected as samples from the container indicated as "CM". According to the inventory records as of April 2012, the remaining quantity of CM is over 0.04 km (3%) (30 m3, 89 evidence No. 12 pages submitted by his counsel). In light of the results of the analysis, it is difficult to see that there is no possibility of mixing of net assets without proper inventory management, or that there is no possibility of mixing them with the above net assets.

(2) On the other hand, according to the inventory assets list of the RB (No. 482) and the inventory asset analysis and the test report (No. 629,630) on March 2013, 201, the results of the RB’s analysis of ingredients of inventory from the GD factory to exercise the security right were not found, and the fact that it was confirmed with inventory composed of carbon calcium, Epicium, Epicium, Epicium, Epicium, and Axicium, but it was difficult to view that the Defendants were not aware of inventory at the time when the RG removed the inventory (No. 29, No. 1200, Apr. 2, 2014). In light of the fact that there was no possibility that the Defendants were not aware of inventory and inventory of the above inventory goods, such as evidence No. 29, which were attached to the document, and signed on the inventory list of the goods taken out by the RBC (No. 29, a witness list).

D) In light of the C’s legal statement (16,17 pages of the examination record of the witness T), it is difficult to conclude that T’s strategic inventory is defective or merely a waste, solely on the explanation of T’s description as above, in light of T’s legal statement (16,17 pages of the examination record of the witness T), it is merely an explanation of T’s generally divided description without classifying the strategic inventory and analyzing its ingredients. It is difficult to conclude that T’s strategic inventory is not defective or merely a waste.

E) The current status of management and reproduction of defective writing writing writing writing

Although Defendant A has made a statement or partial statement to an investigative agency of T, AC, AK, AL, AJ,N, AM, and AR as evidence that it was consistent with or consistent with the facts charged that Defendant A was included in and exported to the strategic stock of this case by pretending that it was a normal inventory, it is insufficient to conclude that Defendant A exported the defective writing writing book with the aforementioned evidence solely based on the following circumstances that can be recognized by the records and pleadings of this case.

(1) AK, while working as the head of the former production planning team at the E-U.S. factory, has produced 1 1 e-mail, 1 e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail 5 e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail 1 e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail 5 e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail ju-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail 2 e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-

(2) The AJ, who worked in the EDAMMG production team, has been sent out to the old factory several times in this court, ① inferior writing packaging was sent to the old factory. In circumstances other than the complete disposal goods, it is known that all defective goods which were printed were sent to the old factory. ② In the event of defective MOG, it can be seen that they were sent to the old factory only through the inspector, and whether they were defective or not, and ③ in the case of defective products, it is not clear whether they were recycled or not, ③ in the face, it is difficult to find out whether they were defective or not, and the poor products were not recycled and stored at the same time as the static product, and it can be said that they were sent to the old factory, and that they were sent to the 6th day of the examination of the witness, which was determined as inferior goods in the Da QG factory, and that they were not directly made by the investigator and the 5th day of the YMMMM, and that they were not directly made by the investigator and the 6th day of the YMMMM.

(3) Under this law, AL, working as team members of the ED Q factory MOG production team, (1) talks that there is a test for whether there is any way to recover defective products in the old factory, and (2) talks that there is a lot of cost for recycling in the new factory from 2009 or 2010, and (3) talks that there is a lot of cost for recycling in the new factory, and (4) 50,000 won in the old factory, and (4) 4-50,000 won in the investigation agency did not know whether it is possible to reproduce defective products in the old factory, and (4) 4-50,00 won in the CP supply unit at the investigation agency, i.e., the delivery unit price is not 4-550,000 won in the old factory, and the delivery unit price is not 4-550,000 won in the witness examination, and the price is 150,000 won in the witness examination.

(4) In addition to the above AK, AJ, and AL’s legal statement, comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of the PEPter’s weekly work report (Evidence No. 46 submitted by the counsel) and the Glas’ re-subss credibility report (Evidence No. 47 submitted by the counsel), it is determined that there is a possibility that T may have been written in order to reproduce at the time of the on-site inspection or that AC had taken place from the site, and that there is a reasonable room for selling the price of the writing writing written in Attached No. 4.

F) According to the AU’s resale details, purchase details, and purchase specifications (ever No. 256, 257, 258) of the AU’s false processing and export case on the AU-related AU-related export case, E and its related parties entered as if they were re-imported after exporting goods to the AU of Japan (hereinafter “AU”). However, in light of the fact that the said re-import portion is not verified as to which degree of the total export quantity, and there can be re-importing as a means of return, it is difficult to conclude that the above CU details were made as part of the BU’s processed circular transaction between E and its related parties.

G) Each investigation report and attachment e-mail related to evidence Nos. 5 related to evidence Nos. 5 and each investigation report and attachment e-mail evidence Nos. 334-352, 365-370 (netly 334-352, 365-370) are Japanese AU, Q, CR, CCR, and CTS. The evidence submitted by CU to the effect that CU used the above PPcomer for the processed circulation transaction of E related to the strategic stock of this case, while managing the above PPcomer, it is difficult to view that the E, CT, CTS, CS, and Q is not the PPer, but the E, CT, CS, and Q as a processing transaction and directly a logistics company. In light of the above evidence, it is difficult to view that the EU statement (written evidence No. 14, 15 of witness examination), CTS, CCR, QV, and E-S4 of the Hong Kong High Court's ruling No. 36364 of this case.

H) According to the data submitted by the Defendant A and his defense counsel, the difference between the export amount and the import amount is difficult to explain the phenomenon that the total amount of the export amount from 2008 to 2012 is KRW 146,437,494,143, and the total amount of the import amount is KRW 47,91,010,064, and the export amount is KRW 98,446,484,079, compared to the import amount (No. 26,4857, an investigation record), as alleged by the investigation agency, if the strategic inventory of this case does not actually exist or is merely a waste, it is difficult to explain the fact that the export amount was more than the foreign currency outflow amount resulting from the export amount. If the Defendant A had the purpose of foreign currency concealment, it is difficult to explain that there is no clear evidence to prove the above assertion by the Defendant A and the defense counsel.

I) Even if the transaction method of inserting an intermediate company does not constitute a disguised inventory which does not actually exist or is merely an article without value, there is room to be a percentage under Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in cases where a tax invoice was issued and received by inserting an intermediate company only in the name of the intermediary.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the processing and circular trading of the instant strategic trading was conducted on the grounds that the descriptions of the electronic tax invoices and specifications on transactions related to strategic sales submitted by the Z as seen earlier are the same as those of products sold from E to G, and those of products sold from G to E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Meanwhile, according to the AB’s legal statement, AC’s statement, etc., there are cases where the strategic inventory of this case was distributed through intermediate companies, including BZ, AW, and CW, and it appears to fall under cases to resolve the shortage of funds by using the discount limit of the intermediate company (9, 10, 20, 3647 pages). However, if the goods or services were actually supplied to the intermediate company, it is merely the motive of the transaction, even if the goods or services were put into the distribution channel to use the ceiling of the discount limit of the intermediate company, it cannot be deemed as false tax invoices issued and received in relation to the above merely because it is merely the motive of the transaction, and it is difficult to view that the sales invoice was issued and received as false tax invoices (the title of the goods and the price for the intermediate company without being reverted to the intermediary company). In light of the fact that the goods or services were issued and received without any reasonable doubt, it is difficult to view that the goods were supplied and received for the purpose of G12).

(j) related administrative litigation

The administrative litigation related to the strategic inventory and strategic transaction of this case is as follows: ① purchase of CY8 included in the strategic inventory of this case from E and sale of the transaction in G again was conducted without supply of goods or services; ② sale tax invoice of KRW 381,60,000 issued by CZ in M is as false tax invoice: Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Guhap105472 decided1, May 11, 2017; ③ purchase of DB, DC, which was included in the strategic inventory of this case from G, and again sale of DB, which was conducted without supply of goods or services; ② sale tax invoice of KRW 381,60,000 issued by DZ in M, which was conducted without supply of goods or services.

In each of the above decisions, the transaction of part of the goods included in the strategic inventory of this case is deemed as a processing transaction conducted without supplying goods or services. However, in the administrative judgment, the tax invoice for the transaction of specific goods reported by the taxpayer has been prepared in a fraudulent manner without receiving the goods, and it is disputed whether it is a processing transaction or not by the tax authority. In a case where it is proved to the considerable extent that the specific transaction alleged by the taxpayer is actually a processing transaction without delivering the goods, if it is proved to the extent that it is not a delivery of the goods, the taxpayer is liable to prove that it is easy to present books and documentary evidence regarding the actual receipt of the goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009). On the other hand, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof of criminal facts in a criminal trial, and the burden of proof should be based on strict evidence with probative value that makes the judge not have any reasonable doubt, and thus, it can sufficiently reach a conclusion different from the fact-finding in the administrative judgment.

D. Conclusion

Therefore, since each of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, each of the judgment of innocence is rendered in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly announced in accordance with Article 58

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of the facts charged against Defendant B and C (the issuance, etc. of a false tax invoice) (the part related to the material and products of dysium balance sheet among the facts charged in the instant case) and the summary of the facts charged

No person shall issue or receive tax invoices under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with any goods or service, and shall submit to the Government a false list of total tax invoices by seller and by seller.

G from around 2001, since he manufactured and sold the products of powdering water, he was unable to conduct internal transactions such as supply of raw materials and provision of funds, etc. between E and the parent company, while he purchased and sold the products of powdering water and the products of powdering water produced by E and sold them.

1) Defendant B, including the receipt of false tax invoices related to the portion portion of the raw materials, concealed the direct transaction relations with E, which is the parent company, and increased the discount amount for bills by raising the limit amount for bills, thereby using D in order to use it as business funds. The fact is that G purchased the portion of the portion of the raw materials from the selling company and supplied them to E, but D intended to receive and issue a tax invoice as if it purchased the portion of the portion of the portion of the raw materials and supplied them to E.

A) According to the receipt of false purchase tax invoices and the false list of total tax invoices submitted, the Defendants conspired to submit D offices located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, on January 31, 2010. The fact was that G purchased raw materials for powder powder use from DE, Inc., Ltd., a manufacturer of raw materials for powder use but D purchased false purchase tax invoices equivalent to KRW 224,00,000, as if D purchased raw materials for powder use use, from January 31, 2010 to November 30, 2012, up to 13-110, as indicated in the separate sheet No. 13-110, 2010, up to 109,253,403,406,400,000 to 205.16, 205, 206, 205, 205, 206, 2005, 2005, 2015.7

(B) the issuance of false sales tax invoices and the submission of a list of false sales tax invoices by customer;

From January 31, 2010 to December 24, 2012, the Defendants issued a false sales tax invoice of KRW 116,381,236,188, and submitted a false sales tax invoice of KRW 315,000 to the tax office having jurisdiction over KRW 10,00,00,000, as stated in the attached Table 2-2: (a) from January 31, 2010 to December 24, 2012, the Defendants issued a false sales tax invoice of KRW 116,381,236,18, and the total supply value of KRW 315,00,00 purchased by G through the same method as that of the preceding paragraph; and (b) issued a false sales tax invoice of KRW 117,00,00,000 to E; (c) from April 25, 2007 to 201, the total supply value of KRW 316,236,185.20

2) Defendant B, such as the receipt of false tax invoices related to the portion portion of goods (SPE), was to use D in order to conceal the direct transaction relationship with E, the parent company, and increase the amount of discount discount for bills by raising the external size. The fact is that D purchased and sold the portion of goods from G, etc., even though D did not have any fact that D purchased and sold the portion of goods from the portion of goods, Defendant C intended to receive and issue a tax invoice as if D purchased and sold the portion of goods.

A) According to the receipt of false purchase tax invoices and the submission of a list of total tax invoices by seller, the Defendants conspired with D offices located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun on January 29, 2010. The facts are as follows: (a) G purchased the powder-use product from G; (b) although D purchased the powder-use product from G, it received a false tax invoice as if D purchased the powder-use product in an amount of KRW 755,282,475, and (c) from January 29, 2010 to October 31, 2012, the Defendants submitted a false tax invoice No. 36,698,203,950, and the purchase tax invoice No. 96, total amount of KRW 36,698,203,950, and the purchase tax invoice No. 2130,471, May 29, 207; and (d) submitted a false tax invoice No. 136,314-17,201.

(B) the issuance of false sales tax invoices and the submission of a list of total tax invoices by customer;

On January 28, 2010, the Defendants conspired to sell D offices located in Ulsan-gun F, Ulsan-gun, and the Defendants issued 27,053,592,685 won of the total supply price of goods purchased by G through the same method as that of the preceding paragraph to DF Co., Ltd., but D, as if D sells DF Co., Ltd, a false sales tax invoice was issued, and submitted from January 28, 2010 to October 31, 2012, No. 3-2, No. 13 to 300 of the annexed crime list 3-2, and No. 13 to 300 of the annexed crime list No. 2888, the total supply price of goods was 27,053,592,685 won of the false sales tax invoice 288, the total supply price of goods by buyer from April 25, 2007 to 205 to 216.25.25

B. Summary of Defendant B, C, and Defense Counsel's assertion

G's employees have provided support for the purchase of D's raw materials, but the trading party that purchased and sold SPE raw materials and products is not D'.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 1(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter "the Value-Added Tax Act") provides that "the supply of goods as taxable subject to value-added tax" and Article 6(1) provides that "the supply of goods shall be the delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds." In light of the fact that value-added tax has characteristics as multi-stage transaction tax, delivery or transfer under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all acts of transferring the authority to use or consume goods, regardless of the actual gains, including the transfer of the authority to use or consume the goods, and whether a specific transaction is a transaction without actual delivery or transfer of the goods shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose and circumstances of each transaction, the ownership of profits, the actual owner of the goods, the process of movement of goods, the payment of the price, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du3636, Jan. 26, 2015).

In addition, insofar as the formation of legal relations under the substance over form principle is not for tax evasion or for other purposes, it is reasonable to disregard the legal relations chosen by the parties and to legal fiction as other legal relations, and when a taxpayer conducts economic activities, one of the several legal relations can be selected to achieve the same economic purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu155, Dec. 8, 1992).

2) Specific determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the records and arguments in the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, G was deemed to have been significantly involved in the transaction process of the SPE raw materials and the SPE products, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that G is a party to the transaction of the SPE raw materials and the SPE products, and that D is ultimately a party to the transaction of the SPE raw materials and the SPE products without supply of the goods or services, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A) From this legal point of view, AA, affiliated with G, intended to provide support for the purchase of SPE raw materials, but detailed support was processed by D only in a large frame. ② Specifically, AA, after consulting with the DPE team, made negotiations with DG, DH, DE, etc., which are the purchasing entity of the SPE raw materials, and notified D of the contents of the negotiations. ③ G was not having received a claim for the SPE raw materials from the SPE purchasing entity (the record of the examination of the witness A), and stated that AA, at an investigative agency, knew that DPE’s purchase of the raw materials was to lower the purchase price through integrated purchase price, and that it was not an integrated purchase price for the 10,12,15, and 23 of the SP raw materials, and that it was understood that it was not an integrated purchase price for the 184, 184, 184, 23, 2000.

B) Under this law, the actual operator of P and AW: (a) on January 9, 2009, DI (the name of the goods of the SPE raw material) list (the investigative record 33°2970 pages) was related to the transaction in which P purchased raw materials from D and supplied to G after mixing with a mixture work to reduce 14). (b) The NPG, which is the SPE raw material, was supplied to D, was supplied to B from D. However, in the process of supplying SPE raw material through P from D to B, P made a bill at a discount, and P made a statement to the effect that it was a transaction in accordance with the fact that the transfer of the material was not a transaction in question, but a transaction in question was made by the parties to the transaction.

C) According to each entry of sales contract (No. 29), surety insurance (No. 30), goods supply contract (No. 129), performance guarantee certificate (No. 130), and payment guarantee certificate (No. 131), each entry is stipulated that the parties to the SPE raw material supply contract are D, and the obligation to pay raw material price is also borne by D, and the parties to the contract to the contract to provide the performance guarantee insurance for raw material price and the payment guarantee are also D. Accordingly, D is legally liable under the direct SPE raw material supply contract.

D) According to the AA’s legal statement and the statement made by the investigation authorities of the DJ (operator of DK), the fact that the SPE raw materials have been promptly delivered to the production facilities without going through D at the sales office is recognized. However, the delivery of movable property is possible by means of possession revision, and since D and G are not in charge of the production of the SPE products, the parties to the SPE raw materials purchase contract, either D or D, may also occur the same structure that the SPE raw materials are immediately delivered to the sales office from the sales office to the production facilities.

E) According to the evidence Nos. 118-1 and 2 submitted by the defense counsel, D, in addition to intermediate companies for E, B and bill discount as listed in the attached Table 2-2 of the daily list of crimes, has traded the purchased SPE product on a considerable scale with the third SPE raw material demand source, such as DL Co., Ltd. and DM Co., Ltd., and it has traded the purchased SPE product on a large scale with many countries and domestic and foreign SPE product demand sources in addition to the companies listed in the attached Table 3-2 of the daily list of crimes.

F) Defendant C’s receipt and issuance of a tax invoice for sales and purchase of SP raw materials and SPE products via the intermediate company, including P, by the investigative agency, stated that D having insufficient financial capacity to receive cash through the intermediate company and intended to return to the company’s operating funds, and that it is merely a simple distribution transaction (i.e., one right of investigation record). Defendant B stated in the investigative agency that D in the instant investigation agency would put DN corporation into a false tax invoice due to a lack of funds (i.e., a right of investigation record 168 pages). However, if there was a substantial delivery or transfer of goods as seen earlier, it cannot be viewed as a false tax invoice issued and received in this regard solely on the ground that D puts the intermediate company into the distribution channel to use the limit of bill discount of the intermediate company.

G) The Defendants asserted that: (a) the Defendants purchased the SPE product from G known as E or E affiliate companies; (b) they sold the SPE product by making D as a distributor of the SPE product; (c) D took account of 70% of the purchase volume of the domestic SPE raw material; and (d) D purchased the SPE raw material through D; and (c) D sold it to a third company other than E companies, such as E and B; and (d) the Defendants asserted that D’s aforementioned assertion was consistent with the aforementioned circumstances and X, AH’s respective legal statements, and some investigative statements of DR.

D. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the facts charged against Defendant B and C constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, each of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of not guilty should be published in accordance with

Acquittaled Parts

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice, etc.) regarding Defendant C

No person shall issue or be issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with any goods or service, and shall submit to the Government a list of total tax invoices by seller on a false basis.

On September 27, 2012, the Defendant received a false purchase tax invoice as if he was supplied with goods or services equivalent to KRW 200 million, even though D had not received goods or services from DO by a limited liability company.

2. Determination

The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the part of the facts charged in this case regarding Defendant C’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) is excluded from the judgment of not guilty as seen earlier, and the total sum of supply values stated in the tax invoice received by Defendant C does not reach KRW 3 billion as stipulated in Article 8(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Ultimately, the above facts charged cannot be viewed as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax

However, this part of the facts charged against Defendant C is clear that the statute of limitations was five years under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (2015, Dec. 29, 2015) and Article 22 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 13627, Dec. 29, 2015), and that the prosecution against Defendant C was instituted on September 27, 2012, when the receipt of the purchase tax invoice by Defendant C was terminated, and on January 18, 2018.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes the completion of the statute of limitations, and thus, an acquittal shall be pronounced pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in the event that there is no evidence of conviction against part of the blanket offense, and the statute of limitations for the remaining part has expired, it is reasonable to indicate innocence in the text favorable to the defendant and explain only the reasons for the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do11324, Dec. 29, 2016). As long as the facts charged in this part of the facts charged and the remaining facts charged against Defendant C, which were indicted for a single comprehensive offense,

The senior judge of the presiding judge;

Judge Lee Sang-hoon

Judges Park Il-young

1) The evidence No. 3, seized, extracted and arranged from accounting data, such as SAP, that T, X submitted to Busan regional tax office in the form of its purchase and sale of goods that T, M, and G does not ordinarily trade as above, was seized by the Busan regional tax office’s official Y of the Busan regional tax office. The evidence No. 4, seized, printed out the X-cell files included in the evidence No. 3 of the above (No. 426 of the investigation record, No. 147 of the investigation record, No. 18 of the investigation record, No. 2020-2025 of the investigation record).

2) The instant strategic inventory may be classified into ① metal wave so that metal or metal acids are made of extreme fluor, crating metal waveers, metal pestes, and DP screens produced and sold in the cing metal pest, ② PEGs are printed in glass by a paint using Naniomor and heat treatment, and then, into a special PDP writing box that is produced and sold in various special films together with various special pages, ③ the additives of various chemical products, and the special functional function of the waste list of electronic materials (C. 8 Defendant A’s statement).

3) Now 171 Investigation Records Nos. 171, 25 et al.

4) On January 25, 2019, the indictment was amended, which is the same as one to seven parts of attached Table 6-1 of the indictment list prior to the amendment of indictment.

5) On January 25, 2019, the indictment was amended, and it is identical to the attached list 6-2 No. 1 to 7 of the charge prior to the amendment of the indictment.

6) related transactions No. 1-2 No. 27 of the Schedule of Offenses

7) The tariff classification number assigned in accordance with the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Article 98(1) and (8) of the Enforcement Decree of the Customs Act) is the same item as that of attached Table 1-1 annually.

9) The foregoing judgment was dismissed by the Seoul High Court Decision 2017-71859 Decided June 29, 2018, and the Supreme Court Decision 2018Du5280 Decided November 8, 2018 and became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court Decision 2018Du5280 Decided November 8, 2018.

10) It is the same tax invoice No. 6-1 annually as attached Table 6-14.

11) Although recognition as a processing transaction was made, the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted on the ground that the exclusion period for imposition of value-added tax has expired, and thereafter the Plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit in the second instance.

12) The transaction is the same as the transaction No. 6-1 annually in the annexed list of crimes.

13) The foregoing judgment was dismissed by the Daejeon High Court’s Cheongju Decision 2017-3299 Decided April 12, 2018, and Supreme Court Decision 2018Du31221 Decided April 12, 2018 and became final and conclusive.

14) Even if chemical products are produced through the same process, there is a difference in their nature as long as they are not produced at the same opportunity. The work to create the same kind of product produced through multiple opportunities and to make the same kind of product uniformly (7 pages of the witness AB’s examination record).