All judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and by a fine of fifty thousand won.

Documents submitted by the defense counsel of the defendant after the deadline for submitting a statement of reasons for appeal shall be deemed to be within the extent of supplement in case of supplement in the grounds for appeal.

The respective sentence (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and fines of 465,00,000, the second sentence: imprisonment for a period of two years, and imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years, and imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years, and imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months) for a period of three years is unreasonable.

The prosecutor (as to the judgment of the court below of first instance), misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the point of issuing the false tax invoice at the end of 25 to 41) (as to the point of issuing a false tax invoice at the end of 25 to 41 of the annexed crime list), the defendant issued or received the false tax invoice after being recruited to issue and receive each other's false tax invoice by using AI and large carbon companies. After the defendant was detained, the AI received a certificate for issuing the tax invoice from S and AH in accordance with the above conspiracy, and issued the false tax invoice in the name of AC (hereinafter referred to as "AC") as shown in the annexed list of crimes (1) 25 to 41.

With respect to the issuance of the aforementioned false tax invoice, the AI has credibility in its statement, such as the subject, time, method, and compliance with the statement of AH, and there is no big difference between the sum (1,004,041,772 won) of the supply value of the false tax invoice issued by the AI under the name of AC and the supply value (1,058,567,770 won) of the false tax invoice received by the AI operation company including BF (hereinafter “BF, etc.”) by the Defendant C.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to this part of the charges.

The above-mentioned sentence, which has been sentenced by the first instance court of sentencing unfair, is too uneasy and unfair.

We examine the reasons for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment.

Consolidated Hearing (as to the original judgment of the court below, No. 1, 2, and 3).