2. It is recognized that the decision-making defendant is both aware of and against all of the instant crimes, and is likely to suffer economic difficulties.

However, there is no intention or ability to issue or extend the fraudulent part among the crimes of this case, but it is not good that the defendant deceivings the victims to issue or extend the visa, and it is not sufficient to commit the crime by deceiving the victims to acquire the money in return.

In addition, even though the period of more than four years has passed after the crime of this case, victims have not been recovered, and the defendant has been able to be punished five times for the same crime, including fraud in the name of non-self-issuance, and not only three times for the same type of crime but also three times for the criminal records of suspended execution or more due to the same type of crime is disadvantageous to

In addition, the part on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in the crime of this case does not seem to be weak in terms of disturbing tax order by pretending as if they were supplied without supplying goods or services. However, the lower court seems to have appropriately determined the amount of punishment for each crime of this case by taking into account that the amount and size of the false tax invoice of this case are not large, considering that the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

In full view of the above circumstances and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age of the Defendant, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., as well as the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, and there is no change in circumstances that change in the amount of punishment between the lower court and the lower court, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s argument is unfair because the sentence of a fine of KRW 8 million imposed by

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit.