1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and a fine of four hundred million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, based on the erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (the part on the Defendant’s acquittal in the judgment of the court below), it can be recognized that the Defendant issued or received the whole false tax invoice indicated in the separate sheet (1) in order to secure the business rights of large enterprises or to maintain the relationship with the trading partner at least by undissiping the company’s appearance of trade. Such purpose is to obtain economic benefits, and it can be seen that the purpose of the aforementioned provision falls under “for profit-making purpose” as stipulated in Article 8-2(

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant appears to be the “representative director” as stated in the indictment of internal directors of the company in charge of the in-house director of the company in charge of the in-house director of the company in charge of the in-house director of the company in charge of the in-house director of the Daegu-U.S. C.D.. The Defendant is the actual operator of the P in-house, which is located in the G.U.S.F., without supplying goods or services. Any person shall not be issued or issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying any goods or services. Nevertheless, the Defendant was issued a false tax invoice for the supply price of the supply price of the company in the office in charge of the in-house, which is a business partner, on February 10, 2017, even though there was no fact that goods or services were supplied to the in-house company in the above company in charge of the in-house loan settlement, and issued a false tax invoice for supplier from that time to January 10, 201918.