The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1 and 1 of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., the issuance of a false tax invoice, etc.; hereinafter “Special Act”) refers to obtaining direct economic benefits, such as receiving the tax invoice from an actor on the part of receiving the tax invoice without supplying goods or services. Thus, even if Defendant A obtained M&A, an investor invitation or bank loan, and issued a false tax invoice, it cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the Act (i.e., the issuance of a false tax invoice, etc.) (i., the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) (i.e., the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., the issuance of a false tax invoice), and (ii) the B and C are issued with respect to the actual transaction of the tax invoice, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is not sufficient to establish a crime of violation of the Act (i.e., the issuance of a false tax invoice by a prosecutor).

C) In light of the fact that Defendant B and C committed the instant crime prior to the current representative director’s acquisition of each of the above companies, Defendant A was convicted in the lower court, Defendant B and C faithfully paid the additional taxes notified by the tax office, etc., it is unreasonable for Defendant B and C to impose criminal liability in accordance with both penal provisions.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing [Defendant A: imprisonment of two years and six months, suspension of execution of three years, community service order of 120 hours, fine of 2 billion won per day (2 billion won per exchange custody), Defendant B: KRW 300 million, and Defendant C: fine of 70 million] is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, B (ex officio judgment), Defendant A, B, and the Prosecutor, the case was examined by the Prosecutor, and the case was examined by the Prosecutor.