All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (Article 2015 Gohap274 of the lower judgment) (Article 2015 Gohap274 of the lower judgment) was made by Defendant A to lend the name of Defendant B to Defendant B, but Defendant B cannot be deemed to have intentionally engaged in or conspired with Defendant B with regard to the crime indicated in this part of the facts charged. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts. (2) Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, such as the entry of the instant tax invoice, etc., (i) was made, but the instant tax invoice, etc. was issued or received in a fraudulent manner, since the instant tax invoice, etc. was issued or received.

(2) However, although Defendant B purchased scrap metal as indicated in the attached list of crimes (5) in the lower judgment and exempted Defendant B from issuing a tax invoice, this is due to the fact that the supplier did not issue a tax invoice from among the suppliers, and thus, Defendant B cannot be held liable for receiving the above tax invoice.

3) The sentence of the lower court on the Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing (the sentence of the Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence in one year and six months of imprisonment; the suspension of sentence of the community service order 120 hours and fine; Defendant B: Imprisonment with labor for 2 years and fine 2.4 billion won, too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the Defendants’ respective prosecutor’s statements, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that Defendant A understood the transaction structure in which Defendant A had a nominal business entity, as stated in the lower judgment in this part, and conducted transactions with Defendant B, as stated in the reasoning of the lower judgment, on the ground that it was recognized that Defendant A had a mutual understanding of the transaction structure in which Defendant A had a nominal business entity and conducted transactions. 2) Whether the lower court properly