The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment for one year, the defendant corporation A is punished by a fine of 100,000,000 won.

Article 10 Paragraph (3) Item 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is not applicable because part of the transaction in the case of issuing a false tax invoice is not issuing a tax invoice without real transaction, but it is merely issuing a tax invoice by expanding the supply price. Although Defendant B actually sold, Defendant B did not receive a tax invoice due to the other party’s refusal and issued a tax invoice to fill the difference, Defendant B’s defense counsel argued that there was no profit-making purpose. However, Defendant B explicitly withdrawn the above assertion at the third trial date of the first instance trial.

Where an entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act issues an electronic tax invoice and transmits the details of issuance of an electronic tax invoice to the head of the national tax office, there is no obligation to submit a sum table of tax invoices by customer. Defendant B merely submits a sum table stating only the total amount of issued and supplied values after issuing an electronic tax invoice, but does not submit a sum table of tax invoices by customer, and it is difficult to deem that submitting a sum table of tax invoices by customer constitutes a separate crime. As long as there is no obligation to submit a sum table of tax invoices by customer, it does not constitute “person who is obligated to submit a sum table of tax invoices by customer” as the principal agent under Article 10(1) and (3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Therefore, Defendant B and Defendant B, which is premised on the establishment of Defendant B’s crime, are not liable for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to submission of a list of total tax invoices by false customer.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged.