All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged 1) Defendant A related to the receipt of the tax invoice of Defendant A (Article 1-A of the facts charged) (Article 1-A) was issued 443 copies of the false tax invoice amounting to KRW 30,620,761,333 in total supply value from M for profit-making purposes, even though Defendant C (hereinafter “C”) was actually supplied with a closed-end operation from around June 29, 2015 to April 5, 2016 by Defendant C (hereinafter “C”).

2) Defendants related to the receipt of tax invoices among the Defendants (Articles 1-b and 1-2 of the facts charged) did not actually provide the Defendant Company D (hereinafter “D”) operated by the Defendant Company D (hereinafter “D”), the private enterprise He operated by the Defendant Company B from July 4, 2017 to November 10 of the same year. However, on the premise that there was a supply of the waste agreement, the Defendants received Chapter 111 of the false tax invoice (the issuance of Defendant B and the receipt of Defendant A) on the premise that there was a supply of the waste agreement.

B. The lower court found Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants through the jury verdict (Defendant A: the jury’s opinion of conviction against only seven jurors, Defendant B: the jury’s opinion of conviction against Defendant B), and sentenced Defendant A to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and fines of KRW 4.9 billion, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and fine of KRW 1.8 billion.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal and key issues thereof;

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) 1) misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as to 1-A (C related) - M who issued tax invoices to Defendant A runs a business in the way of actually purchasing and selling non-data-free weights (closed weights) in the name of F. The fact that Defendant A was supplied with waste-free weights. Thus, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have received false tax invoices without real transactions.

- even M is false.