The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12,000,000 won.

A fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although there was no actual provision of goods or provision of false tax invoices or issuance of false tax invoices.

B. In the course of conducting a tax investigation with respect to the defendant, the tax authorities of the misapprehension of the legal principle had conducted a tax investigation beyond the period and scope of the tax investigation notified to the defendant first, which is in violation of the duty to notify under Article 81-9 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the duty to obtain approval from the taxpayer's rights and interests respect committee or the taxpayer protection officer in order to expand the scope of the tax investigation under Article 39 (2) of the Regulations on the Management of National Tax Investigation by the National Tax Service. As seen above, the evidence collected through the illegal tax investigation is inadmissible as illegally collected evidence,

C. Even if there is no unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing (fine 24.8 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. A person liable to deliver a tax invoice to an entrepreneur who is supplied with the goods or services after being issued a tax invoice by an entrepreneur under the Value-Added Tax Act on a mistake of fact shall be deemed to be a person who actually provided or received goods or services by an entrepreneur, not a person constituting a nominal legal relationship with the entrepreneur who actually provided or received the goods or services, rather than a person who actually provided or

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2008Do1715, Jul. 24, 2008). Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court.