The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the following grounds, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the following facts charged in the instant charges.

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not commit an act of receiving a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied with goods or services, but (1) around January 31, 2013, at the office D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “D”) around January 31, 2013, the Defendant was issued a false tax invoice as if he received a supply of goods or services equivalent to KRW 260,454,545 in the value of supply, although he/she did not have received goods or services from E, and (2) around February 28, 2013, the Defendant was issued a false tax invoice as if he/she received goods or services equivalent to KRW 357,072,727 in the value of supply, although he/she did not have received goods or services from E.

B. The lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, where a real transaction is conducted, and where a tax invoice stating false details of the supply price arising from a real transaction is simply issued, the lower court does not apply Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Then, based on the facts of recognition, E supplied food materials from J in January and February 2013, and E supplied the above food materials to D. However, considering that E’s supply price of tax invoice issued by E was only the amount that is larger than that of the actual supply, the supply price of the tax invoice issued by E does not constitute the receipt of the tax invoice without the supply of goods or services insofar as there exists a real transaction between E and E., so the Defendant’s act does not fall under Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

The decision was determined.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(a) Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act provides that the act of receiving added-value tax invoices under tax-related Acts shall be punished without being supplied with goods or services;