A. Under the direction of Defendant B, the representative director of the H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), Defendant A (hereinafter “H”), Defendant A (i) has a false tax invoice issued in lieu of the issuance of the false tax invoice under the direction of Defendant B (hereinafter “G”), and Defendant A did not actually operate G.

In addition, Defendant A did not participate in the process of issuing a tax invoice related to N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) and S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”).

Dob. In light of the fact that Defendant A suffered from an unreasonable sentencing sentence, most of his mistakes and reflects on his own, and that his family is faced with economic difficulties due to Defendant A’s perception, the sentence of the lower court against Defendant A (fine 25 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (i.e., mistake of facts) merely transferred G to O and Defendant A by U introduction, and there is no omission in the issuance of the tax invoice related to G.

Shebly, the lower court’s sentence on Defendant B’s unreasonable sentencing (fine 25 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, a public offering is not required under the law, but is only a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime through the joint processing of the two or more persons. As such, a public offering is established even in the case where a combination of the two or more persons is made in order or impliedly.

In addition, strict proof is required to recognize such a conspiracy, but where the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts which are relevant to the nature of the object, and in this case, what constitutes indirect facts which have considerable relation, the link of the fact through close observation and analysis based on normal empirical rule.