The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant, as the actual operator of E Co., Ltd., committed an offense identical to the facts charged in this case, but the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant is not the actual operator of the above corporation.

2. The summary of the facts charged is the person who actually operated E from August 4, 2005 to December 31, 2006, the Defendant is a person who actually operated E in Namyang-si.

Around March 29, 2007, the Defendant filed a corporate tax return on the Namyang-dong, Seoyang-si. The fact was that the said E Company was supplied with goods such as general fine, etc. from the new agricultural partnership during the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. However, the Defendant submitted a list of individual suppliers’ invoices in 2006, stating a false statement as to the supply price of goods, such as general fine not exceeding KRW 320,015,00,000, from the said company, as it was provided with goods such as general fine not exceeding KRW 320,000.

3. The court below held that the first police interrogation protocol against the defendant was inadmissible and admissible as the defendant denies its content, and that the defendant's statement by F of the witness who conforms to the above facts charged as the actual operator of E company is hard to believe in light of the contents of the witness G and H's statement, and the other prosecutor's evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant as the actual operator of E company. Rather, according to the witness G and H's statements of the court below, the actual operator of E company is not the defendant, but the defendant is not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

A thorough examination of the evidence of this case in light of the records, the court below's decision that the defendant is not guilty of the above facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view the defendant as the actual operator of E company on the basis of the above evidence judgment and the macroscopic circumstances is just.