2. As in the instant case, the Defendants’ act of issuing or receiving false tax invoices is an offense that undermines tax justice and trade order and impedes the State’s legitimate exercise of the right to collect taxes, and thus requires strict punishment. Moreover, the Defendants’ act of issuing or receiving false tax invoices exceeds KRW 600,000,000, which is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the defendants recognized each of the crimes of this case and against their mistake, there is no record of punishment for the same crime, and there is no record of punishment heavier than the fine, and Defendant A actually operated.

The fact that G appears to have issued a false tax invoice in the name of Defendant B with respect to the construction project performed by the above G while closing the business is favorable to the Defendants.

In addition, there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be newly considered after the pronouncement of the judgment below, and considering the records of this case, including the age of Defendant A, sex behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it does not seem that each sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasy and unfair.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals against the defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.