The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Around July 2013, the Defendant: (a) had operated “B” which was registered as a type of business with a household retail business from around April 2012 under his/her name as a person operating “B”; (b) had been proposed by “B to provide human resources for the issuance of false tax invoices; (c) in addition to the type of business with the business registration certificate and other contract business, 30% of the value-added tax amount will be paid to himself/herself; (d) around July 31, 2013, the Defendant submitted a revised registration statement stating that “B” registered as a type of business with only the household retail business as a type of business in the “B” column of “B”, which was registered as a type of business with a service/other contracting business, submitted a revised registration statement stating that C or D will be used to issue a false tax invoice; and (e) had knowledge that C or D will be used to issue a false tax invoice, thereby evading its license or compulsory execution through the “B”’s business registration certificate and the passbook card.

2. Determination

A. The principle of no punishment without law requires that crimes and penalties be determined by law in order to protect individual freedom and rights from arbitrary exercise of the state penal authority.

In light of such purport, the interpretation of the penal law must be strict, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of the explicit penal law in the direction unfavorable to the defendant as it is against the principle of no punishment without law.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230, Nov. 28, 2013). (B)

In addition to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court in this part of the facts charged, the defendant added the "B" business operator's business operated from April 2012 to "B" business operator's business, which he operated from around April 2013.