The judgment below

The part of the defendant A (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one and half years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant is not the actual operator of D gas stations, I gas stations,O gas stations, S gas stations (hereinafter “each of the instant gas stations”).

D Gas stations and I gas stations together with X and AL, O gas stations together with X and C, and S gas stations independently operated by X, and the Defendant merely performed duties concerning each of the instant gas stations according to X, etc.’s instructions.

2) The sentence of the lower court (a year and six months of imprisonment and a fine of KRW 1.5 billion) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1 is not the actual operator of the O gas station, but there was no conspiracy to commit a crime, such as issuing a false tax invoice with A, or there was no participation in such crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the appellate trial, the prosecutor’s ex officio determination on Defendant A applied for changes in the indictment with the content that “the act of lending in the name of tax evasion” part of the facts charged against the Defendant as stated in the criminal facts stated in the “reason of the judgment again used against Defendant A,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by the appellate court upon permission.

This part of the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty should be sentenced to a single sentence in relation to the remaining criminal facts and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, so the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the appellate court's judgment despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant is the actual operator of each of the instant gas stations.