The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and a fine not exceeding 5.3 billion won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) operated by the Defendant for misunderstanding of facts

corporation G (hereinafter referred to as “G”)

2) As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal, the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is with merit.

(i) Co., Ltd. I (hereinafter “I”);

A) In fact, the Defendant actually purchased the tax invoices and other documentary evidence related thereto. Moreover, the Defendant did not know about the previous trading companies except the said three purchasing companies, and did not publicly invite processing transactions, etc. in advance. 2) The sentence (two years of imprisonment and fine fine fine fine KRW 5.3 billion) imposed on the Defendant by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The F, operated by the Defendant for mistake of facts, is the so-called “Doro business” and not only the purchase transaction but also U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”).

) Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Woo metal”).

(ii) non-cases metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-cases metal”);

) New Korea Exchange, X, and NAC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “IBK”)

(ii)The sales transactions with the Defendant are also false transactions. This is sufficiently recognized by the relevant business experience and office operational status, the details and mode of transactions with the relevant companies, the movement of the transaction amount, and the abnormal flow of the issuance of electronic tax invoices. (ii) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the said judgment. 2) If the circumstances recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court were to be considered based on the following circumstances, the lower court’s above determination is just.