All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A found the G company that supplies non-ferrouss, etc. and H company and prepared a statement of transactions, a table of accounts, and a table of accounts by confirming the weight and degree of non-ferrouss, etc. that are actually supplied, and Defendant A was also supplied with the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”). Since Defendant Company received a certain amount of profit from the said transaction and paid the value-added tax normally, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have submitted to the Government a list of tax invoices by false purchase and sale, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (the 2-year imprisonment of Defendant A and the 1.4 billion won fine, and the 1.4 billion won fine on the Defendant Company) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants did not submit a list of total tax invoices by customer with false entries since they actually supplied the subject enterprises with non-refluences, etc. in the lower court’s judgment. As to this, the lower court should be deemed that the Defendants, who received tax invoices under the Value-Added Tax Act and paid value-added taxes, actually conducted transactions of supplying goods or services.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520 delivered on January 10, 2003) states the legal principles and states that ① the Defendant stated in the prosecutorial investigation process that “E shall use the Defendant’s company for its business because it is not possible to collect and deliver the non-ferrouss, etc. from G company and H company,” and ② E also stated in the investigative agency that “E shall use the Defendant company for its business.”