All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, Defendant A, operating the Defendant Company B, was fully aware of the fact that the Defendant A was supplied with scrap metal from F operated by G, not G, at the time of issuance of each of the instant tax invoices in the name of G

However, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is any doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined in the interest of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002). (b) Specific judgment by the court below, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone, reveals that the defendant A uses only the name of G for transactions, namely, the fact that the defendant F is supplied with scrap metal from not G, or that it is proved that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that each of the tax invoices of this case was issued with the recognition of such possibility, and that there was no reasonable doubt as to the receipt of each of the tax invoices of this case as a result.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that it is insufficient to view it, and that there is no other evidence to prove it.

In light of the above legal principles and various circumstances revealed by the court below, the court below's above determination is just and acceptable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that Defendant A sent a certificate of content to G as the other party and demanded refund of advance payment related to scrap metal transactions (140 pages of evidence record).