The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Regarding the fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the legal principles, and the uttering of the above investigation documents, Defendant’s personal passbook, security card and its operation from J around 2013 around 2013.

Upon receipt of F's name plates, etc., each of the deposits in this case was prepared with consent to prepare a deposit slip in his/her name.

B) As to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (as to the portion of the charge No. 1-b. of the 2016 order 2374 order), with respect to the portion of issuing electronic tax invoices issued to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to submit an aggregate table of tax invoices by seller and by seller and submitted

Even if it is difficult to evaluate that a sum table of tax invoices under the added-value-added tax law is submitted.

In the case of a list of total tax invoices by seller and seller, it is related to the portion of issuing electronic tax invoices issued to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and thus, it does not constitute “any act of submitting to the Government a list of total tax invoices by seller and seller under added tax-related Acts by false entry” under Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(2) Fact-misunderstanding [the part of the facts charged No. 1-A and (b) (1) of the 2016 High Order No. 2374 of the 2016 High Order] This part of the facts charged was operated by B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) operated by the Defendant.

Since the ERP program of this case is based on the details included in the ERP program, the management of the company of this case is poor due to the frequent change of accounting, and there are many parts entered differently from the fact.

2) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court (No. 1: 1 year of suspended sentence of six months; 120 hours of community service, confiscation; 2 years of suspended sentence of eight months; and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence sentenced to the second sentence of the Prosecutor (two years of imprisonment for a period of eight months suspension, two years of community service work, 120 hours) is too unfluent and unfair.