Defendants are not guilty.

Defendant A is the actual operator interest of Defendant B Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of construction business, and the representative business operator of D established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business located in the city.

(a) No person liable to issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act to Defendant A (i.e., the issuance of a false tax invoice) fails to issue or issues a false tax invoice.

On December 28, 2018, the Defendant issued one copy of the tax invoice stating the amount of KRW 1,363,636,364, item D-based commercial construction work, as if B supplied construction services equivalent to KRW 1,363,636,364 to D, even though B supplied construction services of KRW 3 million to D around July 17, 2018.

A person who is obligated to receive tax invoices pursuant to the added value-added tax law on the receipt of false tax invoices shall not be issued a tax invoice by determining the number of copies, nor be issued a tax invoice with false entries.

Around July 17, 2018, Defendant Co., Ltd. issued one copy of the tax invoice stating that D was supplied with construction services equivalent to KRW 1,363,636,364, and that it was supplied with construction services equivalent to KRW 1,363,636,364 from B, as if D were supplied with construction services from B, Defendant Co., Ltd.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. 1

A. (i) As described in paragraph (1), A, an employee of the Defendant, committed the above violation.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone is sufficient to conclude that Defendant A issued a false statement of tax invoice as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “tax invoice of this case”) or obtained a false statement of tax invoice in collusion with Defendant A, or intent to receive the tax invoice.