The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act among the facts charged in the instant case, when considering the legislative purpose of Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (regulation on the act of forging a tax invoice without supplying goods, etc. and allowing the recipient of the tax invoice to illegally obtain the input tax deduction), and the necessity of the legislation (the Criminal Act does not punish the act of forging a private document, as it is highly necessary to punish the act of forging a private document, while the tax invoice is in the form of a private document, the act of forging a private document is punishable), the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is divided into “an act of forging and uttering” and “issuance of a tax invoice” and Article 10(1) through (3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act only if “a person who is registered as a business operator as a taxpayer and has the authority to prepare a tax invoice is identified as a taxpayer (the defendant is not registered as a taxpayer and there is no such status).

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment for a term of one-year suspension of execution and fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. A. A summary of the facts charged regarding the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act [2012 Highest 6027] The Defendant: (a) around January 20, 2010, without supplying goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act, a tax invoice of the amount equivalent to KRW 1,537,76,000 in total, as shown in the attached Table 1, including the issuance of a tax invoice to E, stating that G provided the amount equivalent to KRW 145,216,00 on October 18, 2009 to D, although there was no fact that the Defendant had supplied the goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act.