Of those, the part as to Defendant B is reversed.

Defendant

A corporation shall be punished by fine 10,000.

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the fact-finding, the fact that Defendant A was not guilty from January 24, 2014 to September 30, 2014 can be acknowledged that Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was issued a false tax invoice amounting to KRW 18,210,014,080 as if it was supplied despite the fact that Defendant B purchased copper scrap from Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), and thus, the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendant A of this part of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced the Defendants (Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended sentence, 40 million won of fine, and 10 million won of fine) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal against Defendant A

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The term "person who received tax invoices without being supplied with goods or services" under Article 10 (3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act refers to the person who received the processed tax invoices without real transactions, and simply delivers the tax invoices containing false entries in excess of the supply price due to real transactions, the court below cannot be determined by applying Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act even though it constitutes a crime of re-payment of tax invoices under Article 10 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do8069, Oct. 29, 2009; 2004Do655, Jun. 25, 2004; 2004Do655, Feb. 24, 2004). The court below confirmed that the former witness supplied the same to the effect that the former witness supplied the same to B from among the following persons during the period of his/her lawful adoption and evidence: