Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the defendant.

A. Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) shall be named as “Defendant” in the pertinent item, and the other Defendant shall be identified only in his/her name.

Defendant

B The same shall apply to B.

1) In order to resolve the issue of “D” tax, which is a medium-sized mobile phone distributor operating by B, the Defendant issued a tax invoice under the name of “E”, which is a medium-sized mobile phone distributor, under the Defendant’s operation, and did not participate in the issuance of the instant false tax invoice, and did not know the details and scale of the issuance. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant issued the instant false tax invoice, which was erroneous, or erred by misapprehending the relevant legal principles. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing [a fine of KRW 45 million (300,000,000,000,000 per day)] is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (unfair imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, Defendant A’s assertion that he/she had issued a false tax invoice as stated in the facts charged was insufficient, and Defendant A could not use the purchase data equivalent to KRW 2.9 billion for the deduction of input tax, Defendant A’s business registration to obtain a false tax invoice under Defendant A’s name, and the Defendant proposed the business registration of E to obtain a false tax invoice.