The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years of imprisonment.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the process of mergers with E (hereinafter “E”), the Defendant alleged to be erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, upon the advice of a certified accountant accountant, that the purchase or sale by the said company, etc. was not illegal as if the purchase or sale was made by D (hereinafter “D”), the Defendant issued and received false tax invoices or submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer or by seller.

This is an act of misunderstanding that one's act was not a crime under the law, and therefore constitutes a mistake in the law of Article 16 of the Criminal Code.

Although the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to errors in law, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (five years of suspended sentence for three years of imprisonment and a fine of three billion won) is too unreasonable.

2. The ex officio decision-making Constitutional Court shall apply the amended provisions of Article 70(2) of the Criminal Act on October 26, 2017 to cases where a public prosecution is instituted for the first time after this Act enters into force.

Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014; hereinafter “amended Criminal Act”) decided that a crime would be in violation of the Constitution against the principle of influence of punishment (the Constitutional Court Order 2015HunBa239, 2016HunBa177 (Consolidation) dated October 26, 2017). This decision was made before the enforcement of the amended Criminal Act, but if a fine exceeding KRW 100 million was imposed on a criminal act prosecuted after the enforcement of the amended Criminal Act, Article 70(2) of the amended Criminal Act, which amended the lower limit of the period of detention in the workhouse, was retroactively invalidated in accordance with Articles 75(6) and 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

Ultimately, Article 70(2) of the amended Criminal Code applies only to a criminal act conducted after May 14, 2014, which was enforced on the date of enforcement, and for a criminal act committed before that date, the former Criminal Code (amended by May 14, 2014).