A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant 1) concerning the provision of transportation services and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant H”)

J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “J”) as a arbarr.

) A binding transport contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant transport contract”) with

K (hereinafter referred to as "K") and enter into the agreement.

(1) As Defendant H’s performance assistant, Defendant H provided a used car transport service to J. Defendant H. As Defendant H provided a transport service to J, each of the tax invoices listed in the annexed list of crimes in the judgment below (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) is called each of the instant tax invoices.

(2) Article 8-2(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that “for profit-making purposes” means “for the purpose of obtaining direct economic benefits, such as receiving compensation for the issuing of a tax invoice by an actor itself without supplying goods or services,” and Article 8-2(1) of the same Act provides that “for profit-making purposes” should be construed as “for the purpose of obtaining direct economic benefits, such as receiving compensation,” in light of the legislative intent, form, and nature of Article 8-2(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.”

However, it is clear that Defendant H does not issue a tax invoice as “data,” but does not issue a tax invoice for the purpose of evading tax as a transaction to which zero-rate tax applies.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants had "for profit-making purposes" for the purpose of acquiring direct economic benefits from the issuance of each tax invoice of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “for-profit purposes”.

(b).