The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, and a fine of KRW 1,300,000,000.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) actually received non-ferrous metals, etc. from E (Representative G) and actually supplied non-ferrous metals, etc. to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), each of the tax invoices listed in the facts charged in the instant case is not false.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted all of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, and fine 2.5 billion won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant, at the lower court and the trial court, led to the confession of the facts constituting a crime in this part of the lower court, and the Defendant stated that this part of the facts constituting a crime is not accurate memory as to the facts constituting a crime in this part of the lower court, contrary to the part on “whether or not a false tax invoice has been issued to F.”

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the fact that the Defendant received a false tax invoice stating as if he received the supply of non-ferrous metals, etc., notwithstanding the absence of the supply of non-ferrous metals, etc. from July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 by D from E.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

1) The representative G was introduced by the police for the purpose of issuing a false tax invoice from H.

At the time, there was a white car volume owned by D, but the above vehicle was set up around the bank and prepared a false tax invoice with the defendant and the pen in the vehicle.

A statement was made to the effect that the Defendant had made real transactions only once (No. 1-1, No. 54, 55, 57 of the investigation records). G’s statement was made.