The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal doctrine, the Defendant is not a “data” that issues bills professionally and operates with a certain amount of money as commission. Although the Defendant received money in the name of commission from some companies that received a false invoice, it does not exceed 1% of the sales amount that was falsely reported, and there was no thought that the Defendant continued to receive fees. Therefore, the Defendant had a profit-making purpose.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant [two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, three billion won of fine (500 days of detention in the workhouse)] is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine. The purpose of profit-making is to obtain wide economic benefits. The purpose of profit-making is limited to “the purpose of obtaining direct economic benefits by means of tax invoices, etc.” or “the purpose of receiving tax invoices, etc.” or “the purpose of receiving unfair deduction or refund of value-added taxes by using tax invoices, etc.,” or it is not limited to “economic benefits” as “the economic benefits in itself related to the receipt of tax invoices, etc., and the economic benefits that can be directly acquired as a result of the use of the tax invoices, etc., received without transaction, etc.” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do9592, Oct. 27, 2011; 2009Do1342, Feb. 11, 2010; 2010Do1819, Oct. 27, 2010).