The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of mistake of facts, the Defendant, in accordance with the “Joint Operation Standard Convention,” which entered into with the “Joint Operation Standard Agreement”, sent a tax invoice to the Plaintiff in the future, for real transactions, such as receiving a closed cable from the closed cable.

Therefore, even though the defendant did not supply or receive the goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, he did not exchange the tax invoice by pretending the transaction, so the defendant did not have any intention to issue the false tax invoice under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

On December 15, 2015, the defendant's defense counsel submitted a summary of the pleading to the effect that the above assertion of mistake is withdrawn, but the trial court should separately determine the above assertion of mistake, considering that the above assertion of mistake is maintained unless the defendant's intent is clearly verified in the court of the trial.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Various circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined. In particular, the Defendant stated in detail in the police and the Prosecutor’s Office that it did not enter into a false tax invoice with the Plaintiff, such as the instant facts charged, and the Defendant appears to have provided a false tax invoice to the tax office (Article 12-13 of the evidence record). In full view of the fact that the Defendant received certain amount of money in return for the issuance of the tax invoice as stated in the instant facts charged, the Defendant had the intent to issue a false tax invoice to the Defendant.