The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is clear that the Defendant involved in purchasing two companies used in the manipulation of the transaction data in this case with D, and was involved in the issuance of false tax invoices, receipt, or fraudulent money laundering inevitably accompanied by the act of submitting the list of the total tax invoices by seller by seller according to the role sharing among many co-offenders, thereby participating in D’s act of issuing false tax invoices, receiving false tax invoices, or preparing the list of the total tax invoices by seller. Since he was aware that his act of withdrawing money by seller was an act of using the list of the total tax invoices by seller, as shown in the facts of this case, the Defendant conspired with D to prepare and submit a false list of the total tax invoices by seller by seller of E company to the Government, and issued and received false tax invoices by the head office of F. The court below determined otherwise due to erroneous facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to joint principal facts.

2. The grounds for appeal and the judgment on the ancillary charges added in the trial

A. (i) The Prosecutor’s argument on the grounds of appeal (as seen below, this part of the facts charged was added to the ancillary facts charged in the trial, and thus, this part of the facts charged was the primary facts charged) Defendant distributed fuel without sources, and purchased E Co., Ltd. and F head office in order to create data, such as tax invoices following the distribution thereof, and D took overall charge of business, including the distribution of oil without sources.

The Defendant introduced G, H, I, etc. to assist the said D with cash withdrawal necessary for financial transaction operations in order to pretend that the said D had actually been actually engaged in the process of distributing non-data oil, as well as the bank.