The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant issued a false tax invoice in the name of “F” even though he supplied goods to the seller listed in the annexed list of crimes in the lower judgment while operating the “D”, there was a final judgment of conviction for the crime, and the facts charged in the above judgment and the facts charged in the instant case are identical in that the social facts, which form the basis of the judgment, are identical in the basic point of view. Thus, the facts charged in the instant case should be acquitted

Article 11-2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010) (1) and Article 11-2(1)1 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4816, Dec. 22, 1994> (1) Where a person who is to prepare and deliver a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act and a person who is to submit a tax invoice to the Government falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding twice the amount

The provisions of Article 20 (1) shall apply. < Amended by Act No. 7290, Dec.

1. In a case where a tax invoice is not issued or a false entry is issued (hereinafter “instant statutory provision”) is a provision to punish non-data transactions for which no tax invoice has been issued even if a real transaction was conducted, and the Defendant made a false entry of the supplier, but does not constitute an offense under the instant provision, since the tax invoice was prepared and issued.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (fine 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of ex officio determination