The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was difficult to use the bank account under the name of the Defendant due to the attachment of the business after the nonperformance of the business, etc., and the Defendant is a person who actually runs the ginseng wholesale and retail business in Geumsan-gun E with a business registration registered under the name of each No. C, not a “B” registered under the name of the Defendant.

On July 24, 2017, the Defendant submitted to the Government a list of total accounts by customer, which was falsely recorded, as if he/she supplied ginseng equivalent to KRW 1,382,00,000, even though he/she did not have supplied ginseng from “B” to “D”, using the home text, which is an Internet site, at the above “D” office.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor’s transaction in this case between “B” and “D” is a false processing transaction without the supply of goods, since the Defendant had no substantial movement of goods under the name of the business owner with “B” and “D” at the same place of business.

Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant transaction between them should be deemed a lawful supply, as it was conducted between a separate entrepreneur and a separate entrepreneur, inasmuch as the Defendant processing ginseng in the name of “D” recognized as a supplier to FF Co., Ltd. and supplying F Co., Ltd. under the name of “D,” although there was no substantial movement of goods due to the same place of business, but there was no actual movement of goods.

B. Therefore, we examine whether the Defendant’s instant transaction constitutes “supply of goods” under Article 10(3)2 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

1. The meaning of "supply of goods" does not have any separate definition provision in the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or the Income Tax Act, and its meaning is the Value-Added Tax Act such as Article 9(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act.