2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment in the appellate court’s judgment, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is a serious tax invoice issued or received by the Defendant in a fraudulent manner exceeding a total of KRW 1.9 billion. The crime of this case is a serious crime that interferes with the State’s exercise of its tax imposition and collection right and damages its tax justice. Such a crime is heavy.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant as sentencing factors have already been fully considered in the original judgment, and new circumstances or changes in special circumstances that could be reflected in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the original judgment.

In addition, taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, it is difficult to deem that the sentencing of the lower court is excessively heavy beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, since it is deemed that there is no concern that the exercise of the defendant's right of defense may not substantially disadvantage the defendant, "Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure and choice of punishment for the facts of crime" in the application of the law of the court below ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure shall be corrected to "former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 20