The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding G is a business entity, separate from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), that actually supplied services to D and received the payment, and issued the instant tax invoice, etc., so even though the content of the instant tax invoice and the total tax invoice is not false, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

(a) A person who submits a list of total tax invoices concerning the portion of issuance of electronic tax invoices for which it is unnecessary to submit a list of total tax invoices;

Even if it is difficult to evaluate that a list of total tax invoices under the added-value-added tax-related Acts is written and submitted, even if that part of the tax invoices is related to the electronic tax invoices issued falsely, it cannot be seen as “an act of submitting a list of total tax invoices by individual purchaser under the added-value-Added Tax-Related Act with false entries,” under Article 10(3)3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1628, Dec. 28, 2017). B.

Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate that the defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices under the Value-Added Tax Act.

Therefore, even if the list of total tax invoices is false, Article 10 (3) 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.