The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the facts charged is that: (a) the Defendant purchased a total of approximately KRW 6,203,434,887 from F to June 28, 2016, and did not receive a tax invoice in collusion with F, thereby failing to issue a tax invoice equivalent to the said amount.

2. The former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter the same) provides that the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018; hereinafter the same) provides that “a person who is obligated to prepare and issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act” shall be punished for failing to issue the tax invoice (Article 10(1)1) and “a person obligated to be issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act” shall

The purpose of this is to train transactions by compelling the issuance of tax invoices, and to prevent the imposition and collection of taxes from being impossible or remarkably difficult due to non-issuance of tax invoices or not being issued.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do569 Decided July 14, 1995). Meanwhile, with respect to “a person liable to issue tax invoices”, the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) stipulates that a business operator registered as a taxpayer should issue a tax invoice in cases where “a business operator that is registered as a taxpayer” supplies goods or services (Article 16(1)) and the Value-Added Tax Act wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jul. 1, 2013, which was enforced as of July 1, 2013, was amended as “a business operator registered as a taxpayer” as “a business operator.”

(Article 32(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides goods or services independently for business regardless of whether business purposes are profit-making or non-profit, regardless of business registration under the Value-Added Tax Act.