The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant received a false tax invoice as stated in the facts charged in this case from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and paid the value-added tax on it to the State. Since E bears no reason to bear value-added tax on a transaction that does not actually exist, the State made an unjust enrichment equivalent thereto. Therefore, even if the Defendant received a refund as an input tax amount, it cannot be deemed that the State’s tax revenue has actually decreased, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received a tax illegally.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (four months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion on the ex officio determination due to changes in indictment, the Prosecutor examined the facts charged in the instant case ex officio, and the Defendant is the representative of the CU corporation.

On February 23, 2009, the Defendant ordered a facility development project at the office located in the Seoul Association Corporation in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (D) around February 23, 2009, and entered into a false contract as if the said construction cost was 4,076,561,360, even though the Defendant agreed with E to pay construction cost of KRW 3,200,000,000 and executed the construction work accordingly.

On March 26, 2009, the Defendant issued a tax invoice stating false facts as if he had performed a construction work for a greenhouse amounting to KRW 745,45,54,545, even though he did not receive goods or services from F Co., Ltd. on March 26, 2009. On April 22, 2009, the Defendant received from F Co., Ltd. a tax invoice stating the amount of KRW 363,636,363 as the value of supply, when it entered the amount of KRW 147,054,454, which is the actual value of supply.

The defendant's list of total tax invoices entered falsely in the above-mentioned tax invoices.