2. Determination was made in favor of the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant did not repeat the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s wife was scheduled to pay value-added tax by reporting value-added tax on sales of credit cards, etc. in C, as indicated in the judgment during the period during which the Defendant’s wife was not reported; (d) the Defendant had the record of fines on two occasions due to the same type of crime in relation to the instant operation; and (e) the Defendant’s wife committed the instant crime from August 24, 2012 to October 15, 2012 through its operation, even though the Defendant had been punished for suspended execution on February 27, 2013, even if there was a record of interview by the Defendant, and thus, again committed the instant crime; (b) the amount of profit from the instant crime appears to have not been increased; and (c) the Defendant’s character and conduct, motive and means of the instant crime, as well as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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

(However, since it is apparent that the “new salt liquor” in the second page of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the “new salt plate”, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.