The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(1) The Defendant asserted the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle (1) merely received a profit distribution amount under the pretext of G operating expenses and living expenses in the joint operation of E and G, and there is no fact that he received false tax invoices as “for profit” like the facts constituting a crime at the time of original adjudication, and there is no fact that he received fees, etc.

(2) Furthermore, the Defendant was aware of the fact that E was engaged in illegal business while running the business with E as seen above, and did not know that E was in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by committing the crime of receiving or issuing false tax invoices. In addition, the Defendant did not know that E was in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by committing the crime of receiving or issuing false tax invoices.

(3) Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice).

Even if the facts charged of the instant case are found guilty, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, etc., the sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, and fine 2.4 billion won) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Even if the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not so-called "data", if he/she seeks to obtain economic benefits by unsatising the scale of his/her business or issues a false purchase tax invoice for the purpose of obtaining other economic benefits, it may be likely to seriously violate the order of commercial transactions and tax order more seriously than in the case of data, as in the case of data, or in the case of data, depending on the economic interests that he/she seeks.