The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unfunied and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case, although the defendant, as the representative director of the victim company, has an occupational duty to faithfully manage the company's assets, was unable to repay the obligation to pay for the goods that he actually operated by the victim company C (hereinafter "C"), and C, as if he completed the process of outsourcing, issued a false tax invoice as if he had completed the process of outsourcing, thereby causing damage to the victim company by offsetting it against the above goods-price claim of the victim company and extinguishing it, and thereby causing damage to the victim company at least KRW 50 million,000,000,000 to the above goods-price claim of the victim company. Such crime is not less

In particular, the victim company is subject to the imposition of a certain amount of additional tax on the ground that it was issued a false tax invoice by C.

The victim company is strongly attempting to punish the defendant.

The above circumstances are the circumstances in which the defendant's responsibility is heavy.

However, there are circumstances in which the defendant can be considered as positive factors of sentencing as follows:

The Defendant, both of the facts charged in the instant case, is seriously against the Defendant’s mistake.

The defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for the punishment sentenced to a fine on account of the crime of this species.

The Defendant established C in order to prevent the decline in sales of the victim company due to the withdrawal from the customer of this case and to avoid reprimand, etc. against the employees of the business who had been in charge of the said customer, and then supplied goods from the victim company to the said customer and to recover the outstanding amount by again supplying them to the said customer.