All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In fact, the part Nos. 1 through 5 of the crime sight table 2 through 5, Nos. 3 through 4 of the crime sight table 3 and Nos. 4 and 31 of the crime sight table 4 were carried out by the Corporation. However, each sales tax invoice in the part of Nos. 3 through 5 and 10 of the crime sight table 3 were lawfully revoked, and each sales tax invoice in the part of Nos. 5 and 10 of the crime sight table 4 and 17 and 18 were actually carried out by the Corporation. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants of the violation of each of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of each of the charges of violating the Punishment of

B. The prosecutor (defendant A and B) misjudgmentation of facts (the part not guilty in the case) 1) Defendant A under investigation by an investigative agency, and confirmed the contents of the crime list containing the tax invoice as of December 31, 2012, and led to the confession of the crime. The electronic tax invoice as to this was submitted as evidence. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A and B of this part of the facts charged against Defendant A, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the court below against Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court’s determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence of the first instance without any objective reason that could affect the formation of conviction in the appellate court’s trial process.

If there is no reasonable ground to believe that the argument leading to the fact-finding is in violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the decision as it is, it is remarkably unfair, the first instance court.