A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles did not request P andO to request P andO to request for a false tax invoice, and the fact that the defendant sent P to P 34,018,000 won that the defendant would pay the value-added tax imposed in the future that the defendant would pay the value-added tax, but the defendant did not know that he was issued four copies of the false tax invoice from M. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (25,000,000 won) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court based on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, especially witnessO, P, and N’s legal statements, the Defendant requested L-site warden to arrange materials, such as labor cost expenditure, etc. of the J operated by the Defendant, and theO can reduce the amount of taxes on the Defendant’s false tax invoice.

It is true that the defendant asked L's representative P to pay taxes on false purchase data throughO, the fact that P orders P to issue false tax invoices to P and U, and the fact that P and U are issued four copies of tax invoices in the name of M in which P and U were kept in the L office.

The above facts are as follows, namely, ① the Defendant appears to have received the benefit of paying less comprehensive income tax and industrial accident insurance premium imposed according to the J’s net profit due to the chapter 4 of the instant tax invoice, and ② the Defendant transferred KRW 34,018,000 in total to the P account four times from October 201 to March 2012. P again transfers the said amount to the representative N, N’s wife, and V, or in cash.