A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as follows, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) In order to apply Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”), the purpose of profit-making should be recognized. Here, the purpose of profit-making refers to the purpose of acquiring direct economic benefits. As such, Defendant A had the objective of profit-making.

It is difficult to see it.

2) Defendant A was convicted of the act of issuing a false tax invoice from January 201 to January 2012, 201 and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 20, 2015. As such, Defendant A’s crime of issuing the false tax invoice of this case is one of the crimes of the same kind as the judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, Defendant A’s judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A: 1 year of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 400 million won of fine, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is 1) The purpose of “for profit-making” as provided by Article 8-2(1) of the Act is to obtain wide economic benefits. The purpose of this is to obtain economic benefits by evading taxes through transaction in taxation data, as a means of crime for the purpose of obtaining economic benefits by evading taxes or for unjust gains, and to obtain economic benefits by issuing or receiving a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or receiving goods or services (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5758, Sept. 24, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, Defendant A issued a false tax invoice at an investigative agency to F and G companies.