The judgment below

Of those, the part as to Defendant B is reversed.

Defendant

A corporation shall be punished by fine 2,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendants (as to the guilty portion of the lower judgment), due to G’s mistake, Defendant B and H’s employees, the tax invoice to be issued from Defendant F to Defendant H was erroneously issued to Defendant B, Defendant A did not have any intent to evade tax, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the submission of the aggregate table of tax invoices by false seller against the Defendants. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (the non-guilty portion of the court below), although the court below acquitted the Defendants of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to receipt of false tax invoice against the Defendants, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In principle, if the defendant does not appear on the trial date, the court shall not revise the principle. However, if the defendant is a corporation, the defendant may have his/her agent attend the court (Article 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the records, the court below held that the prosecutor's examination of evidence was conducted on the fourth trial date due to defects in the application for examination of evidence at the second trial date, and that the defendant B representative directorO or his/her agent was not present on the trial date above.

Although this case does not fall under exceptional cases that can be revised without the attendance of Defendant B, the court below sentenced the judgment after executing the examination of evidence and closing the pleadings as above while Defendant B was absent, since the examination of evidence by the court below is unlawful in violation of Article 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is among the judgment of the court below.