A. Although the list of total tax invoices by seller of this case was prepared in accordance with the fact that all the list of total tax invoices by seller of this case was supplied with actual goods, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the list of total tax invoices by seller was prepared falsely, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the defendant: 3 million won each) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts.

① Defendant A operated a company L for the purpose of “special category telecommunications business” in around 2003, and around 2006, the part of telecommunications service was divided into F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “F”) and the remaining part of the program development project was divided into E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”). Even thereafter, each of the above companies was practically operated by Defendant A.

② Meanwhile, around March 10, 2009, Defendant A established a company M, a corporation with the purpose of “special category telecommunications business,” etc., and changed its trade name to B (the Defendant Company) around March 2010 while substantially operating the company.

③ Since May 2009, both F and E were placed in a de facto discontinuance of business, including where there is no employee or the office is closed. However, a contract was prepared to the effect that Defendant Company comprehensively acquired each business from F on May 2009 and from E on December 2009.

④ However, the above two companies did not transfer actual equipment to the defendant company, and the defendant company only agreed to pay the acquisition price in the future, and actually did not pay the acquisition price to the above two companies.

⑤ The Defendant Company is still two.