All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of a film for which H and H are unable to act as an agent for the business of buying advertising, there was an implied agreement between F and F that F would return the service price that H paid to H to H, and thus, the said tax invoice issued in the course of receiving a return of the service price that was paid according to the agreement cannot be deemed as false in the course of receiving a return of the service price that was paid pursuant to the agreement.

Even if this is considered to be false, the defendant did not have any intention on the fact that the above tax invoice was false.

B) The sales tax invoice No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 13,14,15 of the crime sight table 1, and No. 2, with respect to the portion received in error by the accounting team practitioners (attached Form 1, No. 2, No. 2, and crime sight table 13, No. 14,15), are determined to have the advertising cost erroneously executed from F to H in relation to the film Mamaia, health table 2, and the tax invoice No. 2, no. 13, and 15 of the crime sight table 2, and the receipt of the above tax invoice is merely derived from the occupational negligence of the practitioners. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Defendant had the criminal intent to receive false tax invoices to the Defendant in connection with the receipt and receipt of the above tax invoice, and the Defendant did not directly report the fact that he did not directly purchase the advertisement from H in the case where he did not know the fact that he did not directly purchase it from the film film.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable for criminal liability by recognizing the criminal intent of issuing false tax invoices.

2) Inspector F, H, F, and I.D.