2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court solely on the ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the opinion is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The lower court led the Defendant to the confession of and against the crime, and the amount of profit gained by the Defendant through the crime does not exceed the total supply amount of false tax invoices and the separate tax invoice by purchasing place, and considering the circumstances favorable to the sentencing in the appellate court, the amount of tax evasion exceeds the national tax justice’s reasonable scope, and considerable discretion.

It is not visible, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court because there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions in the trial.