The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and fines for KRW 1,300,000,000 and Defendant B for three years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts has not conspired with B to issue a false tax invoice, etc., and the Defendant did not participate in the crime.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, fine 1.3 billion won) by the court below is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B (In the statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant asserted to the effect that “the degree of Defendant’s participation is less than AI or A in light of the role in the criminal conduct, the ownership of profits from the criminal conduct, etc.” under the title of “the person who is found guilty”.

This is not an element of a crime, but an assertion of facts on the premise of sentencing, so it is regarded as an argument of unfair sentencing.

The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment, a fine of 2.4 billion won) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor (Defendant B) and the defendant in mistake of facts in collusion with A, issued or received the false tax invoices related to the tax period of 1 January 2014.

The sentence of unfair sentencing by the court below is unfair because it is too uneasible.

Judgment

Defendant

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court as to the argument A, the Defendant conspired to issue a false tax invoice with B and the instant case and sufficiently admitted the facts that the Defendant participated in the crime.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant asserted that he was not aware of the fact that he was used in issuing false tax invoices, etc. from B, on the grounds of issuing E’s business registration certificate, authorized certificate, one-time password card (hereinafter “OTP card”).

However, at the time, the defendant was living together with the defendant and the defendant who had a close exchange with each other, and the defendant was "B" at the investigative agency, but only one day was the business operator B.