The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (two years of suspended execution to six months of imprisonment, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

The grounds for appeal include the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that the defendant's fraudulent complaint against D is justifiable, but the defendant withdraws his/her assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles at the second trial date and only maintains only unfair argument of sentencing. As such, the aforementioned assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is legally withdrawn and are not included in the subject of deliberation.

In addition, the defendant appointed a new defense counsel and again asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, but the above assertion is merely an assertion after the deadline for submission of the statement of reasons for appeal.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles stated in the grounds for appeal as to whether to recognize a false accusation is not included in the subject of a party’s deliberation because it was explicitly withdrawn from the trial date, but the Defendant continues to dispute that D’s fraud complaint is justifiable, thereby examining it ex officio.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, (i) D, at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court’s court, tried to identify the place where the Defendant issued a false tax invoice on December 2, 2013, and tried to obtain the issuance of a false tax invoice from the KCAE through G, which is the subject, and as a result, D, stated that the amount of KRW 1.2 million out of KRW 1.2 million was the money to be received from the Defendant, regardless of the false tax invoice; and (ii) the Defendant also stated that the amount of KRW 10 million was the amount obtained by deceiving the Defendant in the accusation.

The defendant stated that he received the amount, and ② in light of the fact that he received the false tax invoice issued by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. from December 4, 2013 to December 27 of the same month, and thereafter remitted the sum of KRW 1,200,000 to D from January 7, 2014 to March 13 of the same month.