The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles: (a) the Defendant thought that there is no problem by later supplying the same amount of fishery products as indicated on the invoice; (b) the Defendant issued the invoice in advance in order to secure customers; and (c) the Defendant received guidance and guidance from the competent tax official in this process; and (c) the Defendant failed to deliver fishery products to the customer by securing the amount of quantities recorded on the invoice last, but failed to file a revised report without intended delivery due to separate detention; and therefore, (d) the Defendant did not have any intention to issue false invoices and submit a list of total amount of invoices by customer.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the copy of each judgment submitted by a prosecutor at the trial at the court below, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year and four months from the Suwon Friwon on February 17, 2017, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 8, 2017. Thus, the defendant's crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the above non-prosecution crime of which judgment became final and conclusive on June 8, 2017 against the defendant is in the relation of concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act in accordance with the first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in consideration of equity in the case where the judgment is to be held simultaneously.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of the above facts is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. (1) Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) of the relevant legal doctrine is based on Article 11-2 subparag. 4 subparag. 1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9919, Jan. 1, 2010) without supplying goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act.