The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant was actually supplied with scrap metal from “E” and was issued with a tax invoice, and submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller, the lower court found Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (40 million won) by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. The term “person who issued or is issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with goods or services” under Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) refers to a person who issued or is issued a processed tax invoice without real transactions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do655, Jun. 25, 2004; 2009Do8069, Oct. 29, 201), and the same applies to cases where “the person submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with goods or services” (hereinafter referred to as “list of total tax invoices”).

Therefore, the submission of a false list of total tax invoices without real transactions does not constitute “an act of submitting a false list of total tax invoices without supplying or receiving goods or services,” and thus, it cannot be deemed as “an act of submitting a false list of total tax invoices without being supplied” under Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Therefore, it cannot be punished by applying Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

In addition, the supplier of goods or services in fact shall be himself.