The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The defendant's defense counsel in the summary of the grounds for appeal presented on September 15, 2014 asserted that "No goods or services are supplied or provided, but K's supply or services are true, since it is true that it cannot be punished under Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the above grounds for appeal are submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, and cannot be deemed lawful.

Meanwhile, Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act punishs “the act of issuing or being issued a tax invoice without being supplied with or being supplied with goods or services.” This includes not only the act of issuing or being issued a tax invoice without being supplied with or being supplied with goods or services, but also the case where a person being supplied with goods or services is issued a tax invoice prepared by another person who is not the actual supplier of the goods or services (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010). As such, it also includes the case where the supplier of the goods or services issues a tax invoice to a person who is not the actual supplier of the goods or services (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1054, Jul. 10, 2014). Even if the aforementioned written supplement for the grounds for appeal was lawfully submitted, the aforementioned argument is groundless.

The punishment of the lower court (7 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the total amount of supply of the tax invoice either issued or received as the instant crime is not smaller than a certain amount, etc. However, the Defendant’s fault is contrary to the recognition of his fault, and the former husband E led the instant crime, and the degree of the Defendant’s participation is relatively insignificant.