The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the characteristics of the business, the Defendant did not receive only purchase tax invoices and issue sales tax invoices. Under such circumstances, the Defendant issued the instant fraudulent electronic tax invoices in order to conduct a business without undergoing a tax investigation, and submitted a list of the total tax invoices by the place of false sales in this case. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intent to evade taxes, and thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s business was for profit-making purposes. Furthermore, inasmuch as “D” in the Defendant’s business entity was a business entity in which the Defendant was a private partnership BD with the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the single and continuous criminal intent.

3) Nevertheless, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes Act”) applies to the Defendant.

(2) Article 8-2(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, Etc. of Specific Crimes, which applies Article 8-2(1)2, is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. The court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing [the sentence of imprisonment with labor for one year and two years suspended execution, and fine of 429,00,000 won (the fine of 1,50,000 won was converted into one day)] is too unreasonable. It is so unfair that the court below’s sentence of unfair sentencing (the order of provisional payment for a period calculated by converting the fine of 1,50,000 won into one day) is too unreasonable. Whether there is a purpose of profit-making in determining mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, “for profit-making purpose

(2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Health Center, the lower court, and the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant’s profit-making purpose is deemed to exist.