The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine of two thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant supplied each customer listed in the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment of the court below with a tax invoice for the supply of non-refluence, such as actual closure, and issued the tax invoice.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case that “the Defendant issued a tax invoice without supplying goods or services for profit, and submitted it to the Government on the basis thereof.”

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the Defendant’s conviction is recognized, the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment with prison labor, three years of suspended execution, and a fine of 3.5 billion won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts is based on the relevant legal principles: (a) a tax invoice is issued by an entrepreneur who supplies goods under the Value-Added Tax Act; and (b) a person liable to pay value-added tax is not a person establishing a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services, but a person who actually provided goods or services or who actually provided services to a person who is not the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1715, Jul. 24, 2008); and (c) Article 10(3) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 11210, Jan. 26, 2012) punishs a person who issues a tax invoice without being supplied or supplied goods or services, as well as a person who prepares a tax invoice that is not a person who actually supplied goods or services.