The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant had purchased a waste Dong from H operating G and received each tax invoice on the attached list of crimes, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is an unlawful determination of facts.

B. The penalty of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of eight million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the court below ex officio examined the reasons for appeal by the defendant. The court below omitted the attached list in criminal facts, which led to the omission of the attached list, and thereby caused the error of not specifying the criminal facts. This error affected the judgment. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined by changing the claim.

3. Article 11-2 (4) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act of the Republic of Korea punishs the act of delivering or receiving a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services. This includes not only the act of delivering or receiving a tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services, but also the case of receiving a tax invoice prepared by a person other than the actual supplier of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010). Meanwhile, a tax invoice is issued by a business operator supplied under the Value-Added Tax Act, and a person liable to pay value-added tax is not a person constituting a nominal legal relationship with the supplied or supplied business operator, but also the supplier.