A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

Defendant

A: Inasmuch as the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice, etc.), Defendant A asserted unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal and stated the purport of reviewing the legal argument in the original trial on the grounds of appeal, Defendant A, a representative director of Defendant C Cooperative Joint Business Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”) may not be deemed to have received “issued” as the grounds for appeal, since Defendant A, the representative director of Defendant C Cooperative Co-Business Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant C”) prepared a false statement concerning the crime of paragraph 2 of the original judgment, and submitted it directly to the financial institution as part of the loan-

B) As to the crime of Articles 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant A did not have a profit-making purpose. 2) The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant [the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice: 3 years of suspension of execution, 2.17 million won, 365 days of confinement for exchange, 365 days of confinement for exchange, and 6 months of imprisonment] is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor: The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendants (the defendant A: the same applies to the defendant B: the suspended sentence of two years in one year and six months in one year and six months in prison, community service, 80 hours in case of defendant corporation: the suspended sentence of a fine of two billion won in case of a fine of two billion won in case of

As to Defendant A’s assertion on the grounds of appeal that the requirement for “issuance” was not satisfied, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was “issuance” of false statements is justifiable in view of the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant’s seal impression was affixed on most of the invoice prepared by M, and the Defendant’s statement was submitted to the bank (Evidence No. 166-170 pages) in addition to the circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; and (ii) the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was “issuance of false statements.”