The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, only an act of issuing or receiving tax invoices by a person who supplies or receives goods, etc. after stating the tax invoices as a supplier or a person who receives the goods, etc., is punished. The Defendant merely issued tax invoices by designating C (representativeF) as a supplier or a person who receives the goods, and does not constitute a person who actually operates C. Thus, even if the Defendant issued or received the instant tax invoices, such act does not fall under Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (seven months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant was an employee of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Company C (hereinafter “C”) with the nine floors of the building in Gangnam-gu (hereinafter “C”), who performs the duties of the head of the planning office at the above company.

1. No tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax-Related Acts shall be issued without supplying goods or services on which false tax invoice is issued;

Nevertheless, around September 12, 2013, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 10,950,000 of the supply price as if he/she supplied goods or services without supplying goods or services to D, and from that time until September 30, 2014, up to September 30, 2014, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 1,130,212,00 in total, as shown in attached Table 1 of the crime committed in the lower judgment, from that time, until September 30, 2014.

2. It shall not receive any tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax-Related Acts without receiving goods or services supplied with a false tax invoice;

Nevertheless, the defendant around August 19, 2013, C.