The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and a fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The part of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) of the lower judgment in Article 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of Specific Tax Invoices) was supplied as an intermediate circulation, and the Defendant received fees therefrom, and did not obtain any separate benefit in relation to the issuance or receipt of tax invoices. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by excessively broad interpretation or misunderstanding the “for profit-making purposes” which is an aggravated constituent element of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) and by misunderstanding the fact. (2) Of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the crime of Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (2) of the lower judgment

B. Each sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, fines for 400,000,000 won, and imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal above ex officio, the court of original judgment, Nos. 1 and 2 sentenced the defendant to each judgment after having separately deliberated on the grounds for appeal. The defendant filed an appeal against both the judgment of the court of first and second, and the court decided to concurrently deliberate on the above two appeals cases.

However, since each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the crime of the judgment of the court of second instance are both concurrent crimes in accordance with the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, they must be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of a punishment imposed by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's argument on the mistake of facts still exists.