The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case in the absence of “for profit-making purposes” as prescribed by Article 8-2(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Aggravated Punishment Act”).

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Profit-making purpose” under Article 8-2(1) of the former Aggravated Punishment Act means the purpose of widely acquiring economic benefits.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9592, Oct. 27, 2011). The Defendant: (a) issued a tax invoice stating false facts as if the Defendant had not been supplied with a metal product with no payment from metal wholesale chain H, as indicated in the facts charged, for the purpose of normally supplying the non-metallic metal purchased with no material while operating the non-metallic metal wholesale business; (b) from September 10, 2009 to December 20, 209; and (c) in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant’s aforementioned act constitutes a profit-making purpose provided for in Article 8-2(1) of the former Special Treatment Act in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Even if the Defendant paid an amount equivalent to value-added tax to G who issued a false tax invoice, the act of receiving a false tax invoice constitutes an act of impairing the tax justice and threatening the national economic order, and the total value of supply of the false tax invoice received by the Defendant is not less than 3.9 billion won, and its nature of crime is inferior. The above G was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and two months, and a fine of 40 million won, and its judgment became final and conclusive, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct.