For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) due to issuance and receipt of false invoices among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the “for-profit purpose” as prescribed in Article 8-2(1) of the Specific Crimes

Meanwhile, even if the statement of tax-free business operator is included in the "statement" under Article 8-2 (1) 1 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, it does not violate the principle of equality under the Constitution and the principle of proportionality between the responsibility and the punishment. Therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that the above provision

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.