The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and fine for 4,500,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as Defendant 1 as an actual business operator E, and the Defendant, as the actual business operator of the E, actually closed-end transactions with the sales place, including the Plaintiff (hereinafter “G” in the case of other companies, and referring to the Plaintiff’s trade name, omitted) and the purchase place, such as the street metal. As such, the account statement issued or received by the Defendant is false tax invoice, or the Defendant submitted a sum table of the account statements by the sales place with false entries.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court recognized the Defendant as materials and did not have any profit as to the pertinent act, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “for-profit purposes” under Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Considering that the crime is deemed to have no motive in light of the scale of the crime, it does not fit the social norms. Considering that, in issuing false tax invoices to the Defendant, there was a “for-profit purposes” as prescribed by Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment Act of Specific Crimes”).

Since it is reasonable to see this part of the judgment of the court below, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles that affected the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unhued and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant filed a final return of value-added tax on July 25, 2015 with respect to E at the Gyeonggi- Gwangju Tax Office around July 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) even though he/she had not supplied the closure, etc. to the KM, the fact is as follows: (b) Chapter 39 of the tax invoice to the FM on the list of the sales invoice; and (c) Chapter 39 of the tax invoice.