A. Although the defendant did not make business registration under another person's name for the purpose of tax evasion, and the false tax invoice was submitted to the tax office by the defendant while the employee submitted data to the tax accounting office, the court below convicted all of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (5 million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and investigated evidence, the court below's decision that all of the facts charged in this case was guilty is just and acceptable, and it does not seem that the judgment below erred by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the defendant and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

- The Defendant, from May 2006 to May 201, operated “D” in the name of Ma, but M was aware of tax, and voluntarily closed the business. Following which, on June 16, 201, the Defendant registered the business of “D” using the name of “C” and actually operated until July 30, 2012. On June 26, 2012, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice as if the “F” had supplied goods to “D” on June 30, 2012.

- As the Defendant did not pay taxes related to D once, the additional tax of KRW 12,60 million in the name of C is delinquent.

- The Defendant issued a processing tax invoice in order to arrange for the proper operation of the company to gather the fact that the investigation agency has been punished for issuing a false tax invoice.