The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. Of the facts charged for mistake of facts, even though there were tax invoices issued normally by the actual transaction and those prepared and submitted to the tax authority based thereon, the lower court erred by recognizing that the whole facts charged were issued or falsely prepared and submitted according to the processing transaction.

B. The former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 13627, Dec. 29, 2015)

The Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act")

(i)The act of issuing false tax invoices (Article 10(3)1) and the act of preparing and submitting false tax invoices by buyer (Article 10(3)3) are separately stipulated as separate crimes, and each of these acts constitutes a five-year statute of limitations (the main sentence of Article 22), and in accordance with the above provision, most of the acts constituting the crime of this case may not be punished upon expiration of the statute of limitations. Nevertheless, the lower court’s total sum of supply price or total sum of these respective acts is the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment, etc. (hereinafter “instant statutory provisions”).

(C) The interpretation and application of the principle of proportionality between the responsibility and the punishment would undermine the legal stability of the crime of violation of Article 8-2(1) and the interpretation and application of the unfair legal provision. The punishment imposed on the accused of unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspended execution of two years, the fine of two million won and the fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are acknowledged. (A) D is the clothes manufacturer operated by G, and only changes the trade name to E around 2010, and both are the same companies.

(E) G from March 5, 2010 to May 29, 2015, G is deemed to be “C” (hereinafter referred to as “C”).

(b).