1. Of the judgment of the court below, the part on Defendant A and the part on Defendant B’s crime Nos. 2 and 5-2 of the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each court below's punishment against the Defendants A (a term of imprisonment of four years, a fine of 29 billion won), B (a term of imprisonment of one year, a term of imprisonment of three years, a fine of 2.5 billion won as stated in the judgment below), and C (a term of one year, a term of one year, a term of a fine of 2.5 billion won as stated in the judgment below), is too unreasonable.

B. Each of the lower court’s punishments against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio as to Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuing a false tax invoice) with respect to each of the Defendants A P, T, and Y-related specific crimes and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuing a false tax invoice)

A. Summary of the facts charged 1) Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuing a false tax invoice) related to Defendant A’s P, and Defendant B’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuing a false tax invoice) is the representative director of P, which is located in the Gu Council-siO, and P is a corporation established for the purpose of non-ferrous metal also and retail business.

P Co., Ltd. is a “Dor” entity that issues a false sales invoice without real transactions to prevent the actual transaction from imposing a high-rate value-added tax when it engages in the transaction of non-data, which is created with the aim of protecting the actual transaction entity by located between the “large coal business entity” and the said actual transaction entity.

A) Defendant A and B conspired with N, the representative director of P, who is a false purchaser, to submit a list of separate tax invoices by the false purchaser. The fact is as follows: (a) around January 25, 2015, the Defendant A and B were issued a list of total tax invoices by KRW 605,34,167, total tax amount and KRW 60,534,414, which was issued at the aforesaid P office around January 25, 2015 for profit by pretending that they were actually supplied without being supplied with goods or services by the purchaser.