A. Although misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles recognize all of the instant crimes in the reasoning of appeal, the purport of denying all of the instant crimes is also specific.

The Defendant issued and revoked the tax invoice Nos. 1 and 2 through 5 in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant provided services corresponding thereto in fact to the O and Grandmark Co., Ltd., the recipient of the tax invoice. Therefore, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, despite the fact that each of the tax invoices is not false.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment, two years of probation, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the crime No. 1 of the [Attachment 1] in the judgment below is fully recognized.

A) On February 26, 2016, Company B, which was operated by the Defendant, issued a tax invoice No. 1 attached to the judgment of the court below to Company G on February 26, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the fact that the contract cancellation was canceled on April 11, 2016 that the Defendant claimed that “the revocation of the issuance of the tax invoice was not possible” at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation (Article 97 pages of the investigation record).

However, even though there was no fact that the Defendant supplied goods and services consistent with the above tax invoice to G at the time of issuing the initial tax invoice, the Defendant issued the above tax invoice by requesting it to I, a real representative of G, a corporation G, and the reason why the issuance of the above tax invoice was revoked, the J, which became aware of the fact that the tax invoice was issued later.