The judgment below

Part of the conviction (including the part not guilty) and Part of Attached 4 Crime List C. 10 times at the end of 10 times.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inspection (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) An “total entry” constitutes an act of entering a total of tax invoices when filing a return of value-added tax, and thereafter transmitting and submitting a return of value-added tax constitutes an act of submitting a list of total tax invoices. Thus, the submission of a tax invoice is recognized even when issuing an electronic tax invoice.

In calculating the “total amount of supply values, etc.,” which is the standard for aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the same Part, the act of receiving false tax invoices and separately calculating and adding up each “supply values” according to the act of submitting a list of total tax invoices for individual suppliers by false sales. As such, where the court below found a guilty of submitting an electronic tax invoice, it may also be found that the judgment of acquittal is acquitted on the premise that the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, not Article 8-2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is applied.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles on the portion of submission of a list of total tax invoices by seller, which constitutes the portion of issuance of electronic tax invoices, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

2) As to the part on the issuance of the tax invoice on April 1, 2014 related to C, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the portion falls under the act of issuing the tax invoice without real transaction because the actual supply price was “0 won”, and thus, it did not meet the requirement of Article 10(1)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act applied by the prosecutor, and that it cannot be punished for violation of Article 10(3)1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act without any amendment process.

However, even if the court recognizes ex officio the violation of Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act without any changes in the indictment, the defendant's right to defense is at substantial disadvantage.