A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice)) since the Defendant actually supplied each company listed in the annexed list of crimes in the judgment below to the companies listed in the annexed list of crimes.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months and 3 billion won with respect to the first crime in the original judgment, and the second crime in the decision of the court below) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the contents and legislative intent of Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the aforementioned provision covers the act of a person who did not supply goods or services (hereinafter “goods, etc.”) issued a tax invoice stating himself/herself as a person who supplied the goods, etc. or a person who did not receive the goods, etc., received the tax invoice on which he/she entered as a person who received the goods, etc.

However, in a case where a person who supplies or is supplied with goods, etc. has either issued a tax invoice stating a third party as the supplier using a business registration of a third party or received a tax invoice stating that the third party received the above tax invoice, the third party may be deemed to have conducted the act of receiving the tax invoice. As such, insofar as he/she did not supply or receive the goods, he/she shall be the principal offender for the crime under Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the person who supplies or is supplied with the goods, etc. shall be

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1343, May 10, 2012). (B) A criminal judgment already became final and conclusive on the same factual basis.