The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine of two thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is issued or received a false tax invoice as if there was such real transaction, even though the Defendant was actually supplied with a highly serious mobile phone from E, etc. or did not supply a highly serious mobile phone to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The prosecutor changed the indictment to the indictment at the trial of the court below and applied for the amendment of the indictment (the purport of withdrawing the part as stated in [Attachment 2] Nos. 1 through 18, which is a part of the general offense). Since the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

B. The modified Defendant is the representative director of the mobile phone wholesale and retail chain Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B building C.

No one shall issue or be issued a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act without supplying or being supplied with goods or services for profit.

On January 2, 2015, the Defendant received a false tax invoice which causes 169,860,000 of the supply value as if D had not been supplied with goods or services from E, etc. at the above D office, from that time until September 11, 2015, including the issuance of a false tax invoice which causes 11,329,856,000 of the supply value from E, etc. for profit-making purposes, such as in the list of crimes in Attached Table 1, from September 11, 2015.

On February 9, 2015, the Defendant supplied F with goods or services at the above D office.