The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and misunderstanding (1) The Defendant, as a duty-free business operator carrying on both money business, only did not issue tax invoices because he did not have knowledge of the tax, and issued all the invoice for the transaction at issue in the instant case.

The defendant was a duty-free business operator until September 31, 2012, and the duty-free business operator, who knows that the duty-free business operator should issue a separate tax invoice for the transaction subject to value-added tax, is extremely small and that the defendant's failure to issue a tax invoice is merely due to the site or misunderstanding of the tax law, and there was no intention to evade value-added tax.

(2) As to the evasion of global income cells, the Defendant issued an invoice clearly stating the receipt of feed brokerage and reported the amount as is, and the indication in the account book is merely an error of entry, and rather, prove that the Defendant did not have any intention of tax evasion.

In the indictment, the defendant made a mistake in tax adjustment.

Although the defendant is a business operator subject to external tax adjustment, he is not entitled to tax adjustment, and tax adjustment is made by a tax accountant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for one year suspension, two years of community service order, two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) We examine the Defendant’s allegation on the grounds of appeal regarding the non-issuance of the tax invoice. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant, since the Defendant was fully aware of the intent to non-issuance of the tax invoice, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

(1) The defendant (the name of an individual enterprise).