Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B and C and the judgment of the court of second instance are all satisfied.

The first instance court acquitted Defendant A of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act among the facts charged against Defendant A, and convicted each of the remaining facts charged.

On the other hand, since only Defendant A appealed the guilty portion and the prosecutor did not appeal, the acquittal portion against Defendant A among the judgment of the court of first instance became separate and definite and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty part against Defendant A and the remaining Defendants, and the judgment of the court of second instance constitutes the scope of the judgment of this court.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A asserted the original judgment of the first instance on the grounds of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles; however, Defendant A explicitly withdrawn the grounds for appeal at the third trial date of the first trial.

The lower court’s punishment (the first instance court: KRW 1,70,000,00, which was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months and fines for 1,700,000,000, and 2014 and 248-2 and 2014 as indicated in the holding, jointly with 519, 2015, 16, 2015, 2015 and 125 for each of the crimes referred to in 20,60,000, and 200,000, which were sentenced to imprisonment for three years and fines for 20,600,000,000, and the second instance: 10 months) is unreasonable.

Defendant

B In the transaction with AZ as stated in the table of crime No. 1 in the original judgment (i.e., the net 4 times) is not issued a false tax invoice, for which the actual supply of goods was made.

The punishment of the court below (the imprisonment of one year and six months and the fine of 2,400,000,000) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and fine of 540,000,000) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and fine of 600,000,000) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

Determination ex officio on A and C

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant A and C is made, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A and the part against the defendant C in the judgment of the court below against the defendant A and the part against the defendant C are examined.