The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act punishs “an act of submitting a false list of individual tax invoices to the Government without being supplied with goods or services.” This also includes not only the act of submitting a list of individual tax invoices based on a tax invoice issued without being supplied with any goods or services, but also the case where a person provided with goods or services enters and submits a list of individual tax invoices based on a tax invoice prepared by another person, other than the actual supplier of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1054, Jul. 10, 2014). Moreover, the intent of a crime includes not only conclusive intent but also so-called willful negligence that acknowledges the occurrence of a result. As such, the crime of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is also established by willful negligence.

In a case where the accused denies the criminal intent, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention of the accused should be determined by the reasonable method of determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis power based on the normal empirical rule.

(2) On December 22, 2011, the gist of the instant facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant filed a final return of value-added tax for the first time in 2010; and (b) the Defendant did not receive any goods or services from E and New Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E, etc.”) at the D gas station operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant gas station”); (c) the Defendant entered a total of KRW 1,361,945,456 from E, etc. as if he were to receive any goods or services from E, etc.