Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

The first and second court's punishment (the first court's judgment: the fine of KRW 15 million, the second court's judgment: the fine of KRW 8 million) declared by the defendant is too unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the first, and second court rendered a separate examination and rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant, and then the defendant filed an appeal respectively, the court decided to hold the above appeal jointly.

However, each of the first and second original judgments against the defendant should be sentenced to a single sentence in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the first and second original judgments against the defendant cannot be maintained as they are.

In addition, according to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in Seoul High Court on January 25, 2013 to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the above judgment was finalized on February 2, 2013. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the first instance is in the concurrent relationship between the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the crime

Furthermore, each crime listed in the judgment of the court below is a false entry and submission of the list of total invoices by customer and the list of total invoices by seller, which falls under the reporting of value-added tax for the second period of 2010, and each crime is a separate crime. However, according to the records of this case, the defendant submitted each list of total invoices by sales to the director of the tax office on January 24, 201 when filing a value-added tax return with the director of the tax office on January 24, 201