The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and by a fine not exceeding 16 billion won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

Co., Ltd. hereinafter referred to as “C”) by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the grounds for appeal;

Co., Ltd. E (E) :

G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”).

A tax invoice received between them is not a false tax invoice received without supplying goods or services, or is not a false tax invoice received without supplying goods or services.

C and N Co., Ltd. (N)

The transaction between the parties is that the N purchased raw materials from N and returned them after cancelling the contract for the goods that have not been used. In such a case, the transaction is dealt with as if E purchases the raw materials that have not been used, after cancelling the sale and issuing the revised tax invoice.

It is true that the tax invoice received between N and E is false, but since the first transaction between C and N is the supply of goods, the tax invoice issued and received in this connection is not a false tax invoice.

The Defendant does not issue and receive false tax invoices for the purpose of disguisedly forging the management status and financial structure of C, and there is no "for profit" to the Defendant.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (3 years of suspended execution, 16.5 billion won, and 1,000 won of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion that there exists a real transaction between C, E, and G, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the transaction related to the mutual manufacturing consignment agreement between C, E, and G, the tax invoice issued or received in relation to the transaction requested for steel processing service to E or G under the manufacturing consignment agreement and supplied or received directly or through E or through G, is sufficiently recognized as having been issued or received without supply of goods or services.

This part of the defendant's argument is justified.