The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant had made a false statement contrary to his memory, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts and circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts.

① M of H’s representative director is the spouse of Defendant I’s interest, N of J’s representative director is the mother of Defendant I, the father of Defendant J’s in-house director, and K’s in-house director P is the father of Defendant I, and the officers of the said three companies are in relationship with Defendant I and I.

② From January 2012, the Defendant had been working as an employee in charge of accounting at H, which was substantially operated by H, and has been in charge of overall accounting affairs, such as tax account statements, and had been living together at H and I’s house. As such, the Defendant seems to have been aware of the relationship between the officers of the said three companies and their officers.

③ The Defendant requested G Co., Ltd. to issue each tax invoice under the name of H, J, and K, with the direction of H, the actual operator of H, and the Defendant, sent the name and address of H’s representative domains to J and K’s business registration certificate, and actually carried out the work of J and K, such as receiving the tax invoice under the name of J and K.

In addition, on July 31, 2013, the Defendant submitted to a financial institution a power of delegation to N’s representative director and applied for the use of J’s Internet banking (No. 51-5 of the investigation record), and directly performed the duties of transferring the Internet banking account of J and K (No. 444 of the investigation record, and the Defendant’s president’s personal information).

The defendant argued that he was requested to do so. (4) In particular, the defendant is investigated by the prosecution.