The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and a fine of KRW 350,000,00.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

In light of Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “The Aggravated Punishment Act”), when calculating the “total amount of supply value, etc.” under Article 8-2(1) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the act of issuing false tax invoices concerning the same processing transaction under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the act of submitting a sum table of false tax invoices shall be added to the value of supply recorded in the false tax invoice concerning the same processing transaction and the value of supply recorded in the aggregate table of tax invoices.

Nevertheless, the court below held the Defendant not guilty of the charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes due to issuance of false tax invoices, etc. on the ground that it should not be added up solely for the reasons indicated in its holding. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending

The sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates E, a business entity importing and selling T, which imports and sells Tylocks and hygiene implements, etc. from Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 613.

No person shall issue an invoice for tax under tax-related Acts without supplying goods or services for profit, or enter a list of total tax invoices by customer and submit it to the Government by customer.

Nevertheless, the Defendant:

A. On February 3, 2015, the facts at the above E office are about 52 occasions, such as the issuance of a tax invoice, as if the E had not supplied the goods or services to F, as if the E had supplied the sanitary tools equivalent to KRW 15,000,000, and from that time, until November 30, 2015, the lower judgment appears to have been written down by November 30, 2015, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table 8 of the lower judgment (the “Act No. 2015, Apr. 20, 2015” appears to be “the clerical error of April 2, 2015”).