2. Determination

A. Defendant A is against the Defendant’s wrong recognition of the instant crime, and the Defendant has no other criminal record except once a fine is imposed prior to the instant crime.

However, it did not reach an agreement with the victims or recovery of damage until the embezzlement of this case and the amount of damage caused by fraud (the sum KRW 160,000,000) and the trial.

The crime of tax evasion of this case is an offence impairing the propriety and fairness of tax administration and causing confusion in tax order, and the Defendant has established a business entity in a planned and organized manner and issued a false tax invoice, and there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant on the grounds that the amount of sales and purchase on the list of tax invoices submitted by false entry is not certain.

In addition, in full view of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions such as the situation before and after the crime, the sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B reflects his depth by recognizing the mistake of the instant crime, and there is no record of criminal punishment of the same crime or the suspension of execution, except for the previous conviction in the judgment of the court below which is in the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37

The defendant's profits from the embezzlement crime of this case are not so high, and the degree of injury suffered by the victims of this case is relatively minor.

It is also recognized that the defendant agreed smoothly with the victims of traffic accidents.

However, the amount of the embezzlement of this case is larger than the amount of damage and did not reach an agreement with the victim.

The instant traffic accident crime is committed.