The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (non-guilty part) the Defendant received clothing processing from G and other trading companies, and did not directly process the clothing processing from them, and re-exposed them to the neighboring management companies such as M, etc., but issued a tax invoice as the Defendant, who had registered as a business, had been engaged in a small business without the registration of the business.

According to the Supreme Court precedents (Do 2013 1054), even where a person who is not the actual supplier of goods or services issues a tax invoice, it constitutes “the act of issuing or receiving a tax invoice without supplying or receiving the goods or services” under Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Therefore, in this case, the subject who is obligated to issue tax invoices against G, etc. is a business operator who actually provides processing services, such as M, and the Defendant issued tax invoices without providing actual processing services, and accordingly prepares a list of total tax invoices, thereby constituting a crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby having acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted the judgment of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine and completed the investigation, the Defendant was engaged in the transaction by obtaining clothing processing from G, H, K, Mas Korea Co., Ltd., I and L (hereinafter “G, etc.”) among the trading companies, and re-insigning them to M, etc. (hereinafter “M, etc.”).

On the other hand, N operating G is present at the court of the court below as a witness and the defendant.