The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) 1) F’s sales in the year 2014, compared to 24 billion won, was less than 1% of sales revenue; the sales amount was deposited into a new bank account under the name of the Defendant; and immediately transferred to the account in the name of the Defendant and immediately withdrawn and used; and the statement of the transportation engineer or the representative of the sales office was contrary to each other and contradictory to the materials such as the statement of some accounts, etc., the actual closure of the sales amount was not delivered to the Defendant (F).

must be viewed.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby making a transaction with F to supply actual goods with the customer.

there is an error of law in finding the person.

(2) even if F was involved in a transaction in which the actual goods were supplied.

In the instant case, if it is deemed that a list of total tax invoices is prepared in the F name by using the Defendant’s F business operator’s registration with the Defendant’s F business operator’s delegation while supplying G goods, the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the representative of F, who is engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as scrap iron and non-ferrous iron in Seo-gu Incheon, and G is the actual operator of G, which is a non-ferrousdo and retail business in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

G established F in order to secure tax data when it supplies waste glass purchased from non-data free of money in the name of the Defendant to the trading office, and prepared and submitted a false tax invoice to the tax office as if the F purchased the waste glass from non-data free of money and then supplied it to the transaction office, and the Defendant conspired to submit a list of the total tax invoices by the sales office, which are recorded falsely in the name of F, and to close the F after a certain period.

The defendant.