A. The facts charged of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) (hereinafter “the facts charged of violating the Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) (hereinafter “the facts charged of violating the Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) do not overlap with the facts charged by the Defendant on February 12, 2016, Seoul High Court Decision 2015No 3615 decided February 12, 2016 (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”) and does not overlap with the criminal facts of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices) and the place of the crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the facts charged in the final judgment of this case and the facts charged in violation of the Act are all the crimes, and res judicata effect of the final judgment extends to the facts charged in violation of the Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of factual mistake 1) recognized the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and concluded that “The Defendant issued a false tax invoice from January 24, 2014 to July 28, 2014, which constitutes a crime of this case’s final judgment and constitutes a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (a comprehensive crime of violation of the Act) as well as a crime of violation of the said final judgment, since the Defendant issued a false tax invoice as if he supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 12,873,95,000 from September 17, 2014 to June 24, 2015.”