The judgment below

Among them, the part against Defendant A and the part of conviction and innocence against Defendant B shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B1) A, C, and D had an interview with the Defendant before the Defendant was detained on August 19, 2013, but only divided the ordinary dialogue and the instant case at the time, and there was no statement as to the facts charged, and there was no fact that the Defendant instigated the Defendant to avoid.

B. A) Defendant A, as the representative of F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “F”), was actually operated by the company. As such, Defendant A did not have any need to instigate Defendant A to avoid committing an offense.

2) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) Even if the Defendant is the actual operator of F, and even if the Defendant was merely the representative under the name of Defendant A, the act of hiding the Defendant as an accomplice as a partner cannot be deemed to constitute “abscisoning another person.”

B) Since the judgment of innocence or dismissal of public prosecution was rendered with respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) against the Defendant and Defendant A on the A, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as the issuance of false tax invoices), the crime of aiding and abetting

3) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) Although the Defendant misunderstanding the facts revealed in the facts charged that the Defendant met the Defendant A at the sight of the day indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant may cause the Defendant A to undergo a true investigation under the circumstances in which F is operated.

“A person who makes a statement, and does not interfere with the crime as described in the facts charged.”

2) In light of the fact that, even if the Defendant instigated Defendant A to avoid committing an offense as described in the facts charged, Defendant A stated that he was unemployed at the time of his investigation at the former and American tax office on October 8, 2013, etc., Defendant A, at the time of the day and time indicated in the facts charged, has already determined the intention to avoid an offense.