The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, false description is made.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on all of the charges, although the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, conspiredd or participated in the crime set forth in Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of 8 months and the fine of 450 million won, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 ex officio: (a) As indicated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant, as described in Articles 3 and 4 of the facts constituting the crime, submitted to the Government a sum table of the accounts for separate tax accounts by falsely recorded source amounting to KRW 2,371,181,000 in total supply value from February 3, 2015 to September 14, 2015, in collusion with E and with E, a sum table of accounts for separate tax accounts by falsely recorded source amounting to KRW 1,134,00,000 in total supply value.

2) The crime under Article 8-2(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Cases”) is merely an aggravated punishment for the purpose of profit-making among the crimes under Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the former part of Article 10(4) where the total amount of supplied values, etc. exceeds a certain amount, and thus, it cannot be deemed that a new type of crime that is not regulated by the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act has been newly established. Unless otherwise provided for in the Act, a public prosecution may not be instituted unless there is a accusation by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, or the head of a tax office (hereinafter “the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, etc.”)

In such a case, Article 16 of the Act exceptionally lists only the crimes specified in Articles 6 and 8 of the Act, and does not provide any other exceptional provisions. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the offense under Article 8-2 (1) of the Act is a condition for prosecution by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, etc. in accordance with Article 21 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5758, Sept. 24, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, each of the above false statements is considered as follows.