The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and May, and a fine of KRW 1,500,00.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The scope of the court’s trial at the time of the trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that deletes each of the parts stated in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant list of crimes”) No. 21, 40, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57, 58, 58, 59, 63, and 74 on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act among the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant list”), and the court rendered a decision to grant the permission on April 30, 2019.

However, since the issuance of each false tax invoice listed in the list of crime days in this case constitutes a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5147, Oct. 26, 2006), the deletion of part of the list of crime days in this case constitutes a withdrawal of part of the facts charged, which is not allowed in the appellate court.

Accordingly, the court shall revoke the ruling of the prosecutor's permission for the modification of the indictment and reject the ruling.

Therefore, the entire facts charged in this case, including the application for changes in indictment, are the scope of the trial of this court.

2. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment and fine 1,500,000 won) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the issuance of duplicate tax invoices for the same transaction among the details of each tax invoice in Chapter 90 included in the list of crimes in this case; and (b) the issuance of duplicate tax invoices for the same transaction.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the tax invoice of each of the part in the crime sight table of this case, which was set forth in 3, 21, 40, 43, 45, 47, 50, 57, 57, 58, 63, and 74, is deemed to have been issued separately to the effect that the tax invoice of this case, which lost its effect in the course of double issuance due to mistake or correction of error in the entries.

Considering these circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is separate from the existing tax invoice without supplying goods or services.