The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. "Purpose of profit-making" under Article 8-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes") means the purpose of widely acquiring economic benefits.

The purpose of obtaining economic benefits by not supplying goods or services, or by issuing or receiving tax invoices under the Value-Added Tax Act without being supplied, as a means of committing an offence in order to obtain economic benefits by evading taxes through transaction of taxation data (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do578, Sept. 24, 2014). The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (excluding the portion of innocence for the reason of appeal) by submitting the aggregate supply value among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds that it is recognized that the Defendant had a purpose of obtaining economic benefits by receiving KRW 3 million per month as a direct consideration of submission of the aggregate table of tax invoices by customer from D, on the grounds that it was recognized that there was a specific crime of violation (excluding the portion of innocence for the reason of appeal) due to the submission of the aggregate table of tax invoices by customer by false customer (excluding the portion of acquittal for the reason of appeal).

The judgment below

Even if examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “for-profit purposes” under Article 8-2(1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of

2. In the application of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, it should not be considered individually formally, but should be considered in a comprehensive and substantial manner and decided.

The court below reversed ex officio the judgment of the first instance which sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of two years, a fine of three hundred million won, a fine of five hundred million won, and a penalty of five hundred days (two hundred and seventy million won in daily conversion) in one year and six months of imprisonment, and reversed ex officio the judgment of the court below, and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of two years, a fine of seven hundred and seventy million won in six months of imprisonment.