The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and a fine of 350,000,000 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts stated in the facts charged in the instant case are recognized by misapprehending the legal principles.

However, the defendant had no intention to commit any profit-making or tax evasion.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that there was no profit-making objective, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the purpose of profit-making under Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is to obtain economic benefits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7289, Nov. 11, 2010). The Defendant issued a processed amount tax invoice without supplying goods or services for the purpose of maintaining a continuous subcontracting relationship with the Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) which has a substantial part of the sales of the Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “E”) at the lower court’s court court court’s court court’s court. In so doing, it was sufficient to view that the purpose of issuing the false tax invoice is to obtain economic benefits, and thus, it was found guilty of this part of the charges.

Even after a thorough examination of the facts found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the legal principles relating to the purpose of profit-making, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the judgment regarding the assertion that there was no criminal intent to evade tax, the Defendant, in the process of concluding the contract for civil works with the Treatment Construction Company, requested the payment of rebates in return for the increased construction cost from the Treatment Construction. The Defendant approved the payment of rebates for the contract for construction works, and entered into rebates and accounts normally in the construction of treatment construction.