A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court of mistake of facts, the judgment of the first instance that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to H, J, K, K, G (hereinafter “G”), and I in the facts charged in the instant case, but the judgment of the first instance court that acquitted the Defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the accused (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. On January 25, 2011, the Defendant filed a final return of value-added tax for the purpose of profit-making at the second time in 2010, the second time of the charges of this part (A) on January 25, 2011. The fact was that D supplied goods equivalent to KRW 853,960,850 to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) without having any fact that D supplied goods equivalent to the amount of KRW 853,960,850, a list of total tax invoices by seller was entered and submitted to the Government, and the fact was that D supplied goods equivalent to KRW 849,640,100 from H, and goods equivalent to KRW 42,896,50 from I were supplied with each of the goods equivalent to KRW 42,896,50.

B) On July 25, 2011, the Defendant filed a final return on the value-added tax base for the first time in 2011 on or around July 25, 2011, with the aim of profit-making. The Defendant entered a false list of total tax invoices by customer and submitted it to the Government as if D supplied the goods equivalent to the amount of KRW 2,796,612,470, even though D supplied the goods equivalent to the amount of KRW 2,798,710,710,280, J, 904,286,650, and KRW 80,258,000 from K, and KRW 24,090,90,000 from I, although D had not been supplied with the goods equivalent to the amount of KRW 24,09,90,90,00, and submitted a false list of total tax invoices to the Government as if it were supplied by seller. G 2)