1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim as to the revocation is dismissed.

2...

Basic Facts

In addition, the grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the parties’ assertion are as follows: (a) the second to third is identical to the grounds for “1. Basic Facts” through “1. Basic Facts” (hereinafter “1. Basic Facts”) of the first instance judgment; and (b) thus, (c) it

The court's explanation of this part of the judgment on the loss related to D is 'the fourth 2nd son of the judgment of the first instance.'

D The reasons for the partial loss from 4 to 19 pages are the same as those for the fourth 19 pages, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fourth-class 20 to 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance on the omission of tax returns shall be followed as follows.

The evidence No. 13 (I's factual confirmation) denies the authenticity by making a statement that the written confirmation of the fact is different from the original book by the witness I who is written as the author, and that the written confirmation of the fact is different from the original book of his/her own. Thus, the authenticity cannot be used as evidence because there is no other data to acknowledge the authenticity.

Furthermore, according to the evidence Nos. 32, 33, 35, and 38, and each fact-finding inquiry report to F Co., Ltd. and J of the first instance court on September 2016, which was at the time when the Defendant was omitted from reporting on credit card sales, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, as an employee in charge of accounting, arranged the account books and records inside the Plaintiff’s company to deliver them to the accounting office for tax reporting. However, according to the witness I’s testimony of the K Accounting Office, the employee in charge of the Plaintiff’s accounting and tax return at the time, he can be recognized that the K Accounting Office directly identified the details of the Plaintiff’s card sales through the Internet Homebook website and filed a tax report. In light of this, the above fact-finding that the Defendant sent the account office by arranging the account books and records to the accounting office is sufficiently reported to the Defendant.