The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On July 4, 2013, the Defendant, as the representative of the Co., Ltd. B, did not issue a tax invoice even though he was supplied with the marine fuel oil equivalent to KRW 20,685,400 (hereinafter “instant goods”) totaling KRW 6,285,035 (hereinafter “instant goods”) from the sales of marine fuel oil from December 24, 2015 from that time until December 24, 2015.

2. The lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance court that found the Defendant guilty on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge whether only the “registered business operator actually supplied goods or services” is a business operator registered under the Value-Added Tax Act, on the following grounds, and rendered a judgment of the lower court not guilty. A.

There is no way to issue and deliver a tax invoice under Article 32 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and there is no other procedure or method of issuing a tax invoice by an operator who is not registered in the Value-Added Tax Act.

(b) Where the supplier of goods or services is unable to issue a tax invoice due to the relationship between the unregistered business operator, there shall be no legal right that the person provided with goods or services may require the supplier to register as an entrepreneur for the issuance of the tax invoice;

C. As long as the duty of issuing tax invoices cannot be acknowledged to an entrepreneur who has not been registered as a result of legislative failure, the penal provisions cannot be applied beyond the principle of no punishment without the law, and even if the necessity of punishment is recognized in the event that an unregistered entrepreneur does not issue tax invoices, the absence of such punishment is recognized.