The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the facts charged of this case

In relation to the claim, since the defendant did not actually collect value-added tax from the other party, it cannot be deemed that he evaded value-added tax, since he did not report value-added tax, and No. 1-B of the charges in this case.

If the amount of tax invoice issued exceeds the amount deposited into the Defendant’s account, the difference should be deducted from the amount of tax evasion on global income. Of the instant facts charged, the amount of tax evasion on global income is not reflected in this part, and the amount of tax evasion is counted excessively.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, where an entrepreneur supplies goods or services, the supplier of goods is obligated to collect value-added tax from the other party and pay the value-added tax, and thus, the supplier of goods is obligated to pay the value-added tax. This does not change even if the supplier of goods either failed to collect value-added tax from the other party or failed to receive it. Therefore, even if the Defendant was unable to collect value-added tax from the seller, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., deposit or depositee in the passbook in another person’s name, such as the Defendant’s family.