A. Defendant 1) In the facts charged of this case, the facts charged of this case are based on the cancellation of a contract, or there are matters mistakenly stated by mistake, or the transaction company wishes to issue a paper tax invoice, which is not an electronic tax invoice, including the part on which the revised tax invoice is issued pursuant to Article 32(7) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

The court below found the defendant guilty of all of the parts where the tax invoice for correction was issued lawfully. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as seen below.

Even if a tax invoice equivalent to the same amount has been issued, it shall not be deemed a false tax invoice. The assertion of mistake is different from one another inasmuch as the tax invoice issued according to a real transaction is legitimately revised with a negative tax invoice, and thus, it shall not be deemed a false tax invoice (the assertion of mistake in fact can be deemed that part of the tax invoice indicated as a false tax invoice is a normal tax invoice issued according to a real transaction). Meanwhile, at the first trial of the court below, the defendant and the defense counsel of the court below stated that "the defendant recognizes the facts charged except for the assertion that "the amount of the tax invoice issued by append (-) as to the facts charged should be excluded from the total sum of the amounts of the supplied charges, etc. as stated in the facts charged."

2) Legal principles cannot be deemed to have issued false tax invoices for the part that the defendant issued and canceled tax invoices equivalent to the same amount within the same taxable period.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the issuance of the tax invoice that was canceled by issuing the tax invoice. The court below erred by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.