Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and fine for 600.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (as to the case No. 2015 No. 390) 1) mismisunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of this case, Defendant A was committed by Defendant B, and the Defendant did not jointly process them.

The participation also occurred.

B) The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution) is too heavy.

2) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Defendant BA (1) and (1) as the tax invoice (hereinafter “tax invoice related to the instant loan”) between Defendant A (G) and H (hereinafter “H”) accompanying the Defendant’s filing an application for a loan to the Bank of Korea of Korea is consistent with the actual transaction, and thus, the victim was not accused.

(2) The Defendant’s receipt of a loan from the damaged party is based on the Defendant’s credit, and it is not based on the substance of the tax account statement related to the instant loan. Thus, the relationship between the falsity of the tax account statement stated by deception and the Defendant’s loan to the Defendant, a disposal act of the victim

B) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of suspended sentence on June 2) is too heavy.

B. Each of the tax invoices listed in the separate sheet No. 2 and No. 3 issued by Defendant A (hereinafter “instant false tax invoice”) issued by Defendant A (as to the case No. 2016 No. 51) is false that does not involve actual transactions, and Defendant A led to confession.

Although the court below found Defendant A not guilty of the facts charged of this case concerning the issuance of the false tax invoice of this case, it should be corrected as it erred by mistake.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A”) asserted that Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine was identical to that of the aforementioned facts in the first instance court, and the lower court, as stated in its reasoning, alleged that the aforementioned facts were erroneous or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and the lower court’s factual relations and grounds.