2. The following are circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and is against the recognition of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime in order to resolve difficulties in the operation of his/her company; (c) there are some parts of the Defendant’s motive for the instant crime; (d) the Defendant voluntarily filed a revised return on value-added tax on some erroneous tax invoices; and (e) the Defendant appears to have paid part of the amount of tax added therefrom; (c) the Defendant made efforts to operate the company that he/she operated in good faith; (d) however, the Defendant made efforts to cancel its business registration; (e) the Defendant did not have any power to have been punished for the same kind of crime or any criminal records exceeding fines; and (e) the Defendant’

However, since the crime of this case was issued with false tax invoices, the Defendant’s act distorted data that forms the basis for the calculation of value-added tax, thereby disturbing tax order, and thus, the issue is not easy, and the amount of false tax invoices issued by the Defendant as the crime of this case is not specified as KRW 33,93,90. In light of the materials submitted by the Defendant as the crime of this case and the sentencing, the lower court appears to have taken into account all the favorable circumstances in light of the above favorable circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances or circumstances that vary between the lower court and the punishment at the time of the trial, and there is no other change in the circumstances or circumstances, and it does not seem that the sentence of the lower court is proper and excessively unreasonable.

3. Conclusion, the defendant.