The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the part not guilty of the judgment below of the court below, in full view of the defendant's statement at the investigative agency and the account transaction details between the defendant and M, the fact that the defendant issued a tax invoice without supplying goods to P can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts on the ground that there is no proof of crime, is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. With respect to the issuance of false tax invoices against C and the submission of false aggregate tax invoices for P for the first time in the trial, the additional prosecutor of the ancillary charge maintains the previous facts charged against C as the primary facts charged and maintains the following 4. A.

In addition, as stated in paragraph (1), C’s issuance of false tax invoices for P was added, and the applicable provisions of the tax against C were applied for changes in the bill of amendment as “Article 10(1)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018)” and this Court was added to the subject of the judgment upon permission.

The following facts are examined in order of the main facts charged and the ancillary facts charged in addition to the court.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On March 15, 2014, the Defendant issued a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 102,727,272 to “P” without supplying goods or services. (2) On July 25, 2014, the Defendant reported the establishment of value-added tax on July 25, 2014, and on the fact, the Defendant reported the establishment of value-added tax on 12 companies, including P, in the attached list of crimes indicated in the lower judgment.

3. Although there was no provision of goods or services equivalent to the aggregate amount of KRW 734,724,253 as described, a sum table of tax calculation by customer was entered and submitted to the public official in charge as if the goods or services of the same amount were supplied.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the witness M. of the lower court.