A. Of the facts charged in the instant case claiming the misapprehension of legal principles, the issue of a false tax invoice with respect to (B)D and the issuance of a false tax invoice with respect to E around February 29, 2012 is a case where: (a) the Defendant is a real and sole operator of F, who is in a position to be entrusted with the authority to issue a tax invoice to B; and (b) the Defendant constitutes “a person who is obligated to prepare and deliver a tax invoice under the provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act” under Article 10(1)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; (c) however, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty.

B. In light of the nature of the instant crime claiming unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended execution in August, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant A, around February 29, 2012, is a person operating F Co., Ltd., and B is a representative director in the name of the said company.

1) On or before December 30, 2011, Defendant A issued a tax invoice stating as if Defendant A supplied scrap metal equivalent to KRW 1,221,792,980 in the F office located in Busan Shipping Daegu, and even though Defendant A supplied Co., Ltd. F office with scrap metal equivalent to KRW 1,945,359,450 in the actual amount of KRW 723,56,470 in the amount of KRW 1,945,450 in the amount of KRW 1,945,450 in the amount of KRW 364,520,00 in the amount of KRW 364,520 in the amount of KRW 364,520 in the amount of KRW 520 in the amount of KRW 4,00 in the amount of KRW 39,398,60 in the amount of KRW 20 in the above office.