All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, supplied polycarates to the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and heard from the representative G of the said company that he would issue a tax invoice to the U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U.S.”) when he did not receive the transaction price from the said company, and responded to the intent to pay the price of the goods only, and did not issue a false tax invoice for the purpose of profit-making. However, even if the Defendant did not issue a false tax invoice for the purpose of profit-making, the lower court recognized the Defendant as having the objective of profit-making by mismisunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine,

The sentence of unfair sentencing (the suspended sentence of imprisonment for August, the suspended sentence of two years, and the fine of 350 million won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

"Profit-making purpose" under Article 8-2 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is related to the determination of the legal principles of the defendant's assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles,

(1) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion, on the ground that the Defendant’s act was sufficiently recognized as having the objective of profit-making, in light of the following circumstances, which may be acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the lower court: (a) although there was no real transaction, the Defendant issued a tax invoice to the NFT even if there was no real transaction; and (b) the Defendant stated that the said act was in compliance with G’s instruction to maintain transaction relationship with F or to receive the outstanding amount from F; and (c) such purpose may be deemed to have been to have been widely obtained economic benefits.

The above judgment of the court below is made.