A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1: (a) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) operated by the Defendant claiming misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, was supplied by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) and supplied H (hereinafter “H”) with the goods actually supplied.

This constitutes the supply of goods under added tax law, so the defendant did not receive or issue false tax invoices, and there was no intention to do so.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and fine of KRW 1.25 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not supplied or supplied, and that the Defendant was also able to recognize the Defendant’s intention.

The decision was determined.

1) As the representative director of H, I was issued a false tax invoice amounting to KRW 6,146,530,000 in total on 92 occasions, even though he did not have received the supply of land from H from October 4, 2013 to December 27, 2013, even though H had not received the supply of land from H from E.

“A judgment was rendered at the Seoul High Court on January 16, 2015, which suspended the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months and a fine of 2.4 billion won (merger) for three years (2014No. 2945, 3632 (Consolidation)), due to criminal facts constituting a crime, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive through a final appeal.

I made a statement in the court below to the effect that the defendant was actually involved in a transaction, but the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of a false tax invoice) is limited to imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years, and a fine for an amount of money is also required concurrently imposed. Thus, in order to receive a prior action for sentencing, an investigation agency shall take the action for sentencing.