The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the Defendant was unaware of the fact that he issued a false tax invoice in the name of D, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. No person who is a summary of the facts charged of this case may issue or receive a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or receiving goods or services.

On January 2013, the Defendant was registered as the representative of C in Kimhae-si, and the Defendant consented that D was the representative of C after hearing the phrase “C’s business operator who is a business operator and borrowed his name, so as not to cause any damage to v.,” and that D was aware of the fact that D was conducting funeral services by issuing a false tax invoice on February 2013, the Defendant would be entitled to KRW 1 million every month and continued to lend C’s business name.

Since then on June 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) provided C with goods or services equivalent to KRW 209,857,000 to E; (b) provided D with false tax invoices under the name of C as if it was supplied; (c) provided D with false tax invoices from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2013; (d) lent the name so that C may issue false tax invoices equivalent to KRW 1,209,376,000 in total amount of supply in the name of C, such as the previous list of crimes, from June 30, 2013; and (e) lent the name of D on July 25, 2013, so that D may submit a false list of total tax invoices by place of sale, such as the list of crimes (2) re-written in attached Form 3 at the Kim Sea Tax Office.

Accordingly, the defendant issues the processing tax invoice under the name of D and lends the name of the representative to submit a list of total tax invoices, and the issuance of D's false tax invoices and a list of total tax invoices.