The judgment below

Each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) 2018 Gohap46 case is erroneous and misunderstanding of legal principles. The Defendant issued an invoice directly to the party to the intermediate wholesaler’s transaction with the intermediary wholesaler, and submitted an invoice issued as a result of such issuance to the party to the intermediate wholesaler’s transaction, and the aggregate invoice per customer cannot be said to be false, and there was no purpose of profit-making in doing such act. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the application of Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, if the Defendant submitted a false invoice and the aggregate invoice by customer’s place of sale under the purpose of profit-making, and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the application of Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. 2) The victim falling under each of the above provisions is merely “victim” unless it is necessary to separately specify the invoice.

The Defendant purchased the actual defense with the borrowed money from the victim H and I, sold it to the customer, and received an electronic bill as sales proceeds from the customer, and the electronic bill was not paid to the victims. As such, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the money to the victims at the time of the loan, nor that the Defendant had the intent to acquire the money by deceit.

3) The lower judgment on the part of the case 2018 Gohap123 (victim R, S) of the lower judgment (victims, and the money received from the victim R and S is not a loan but a loan. At that time, the Defendant had to pay the money that the Defendant had to receive from the customer, so there was sufficient intent or ability to repay the investment money and the proceeds. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment 1 [Attachment 2019 Gohap36] [Attachment 2] List 1 (victims T Defendant’s total sum of KRW 1.6 million from the victim).