Although the Defendant, while substantially operating the Company B (hereinafter “B”), issued and received a false tax invoice to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), it is inevitable to issue and receive a false tax invoice at D’s request, and it does not receive a false tax invoice in lieu of performing obligations equivalent to KRW 300 million with respect to D.

Therefore, even if the Defendant did not issue and receive a false tax invoice for profit, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “for profit” under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, even though Article 8-2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”).

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence and fine 200 million won in October) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

"Profit-making purpose" in Article 8-2 (1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act means the purpose of widely obtaining economic benefits.

(2) In order to obtain unfair profits by pretending as if goods supplied through a transaction without data are goods normally supplied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13342, Feb. 11, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5758, Sept. 24, 2014). Specifically, the purpose is to obtain unfair profits by pretending that such goods are goods supplied through a transaction without data (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7289, Nov. 11, 2010). (2) The purpose is to obtain loans from a bank with false transaction performance and to obtain extension of the repayment of existing loans (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12758, Jan. 27, 2011).