2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s crime of this case requires strict punishment against Defendant A, in collusion with Defendant B, issued and received a false tax invoice as if there was a normal goods transaction between Defendant C (hereinafter “C”) and I, and submitted a list of total tax invoices by seller and seller on a false invoice, and the quality of the crime is not good.

However, Defendant A’s mistake is partially divided, Defendant A was the first offender, Defendant A was not the purpose of tax evasion, and it appears that there was no economic benefit from the instant crime, compared to the original judgment, that there was no change in the conditions of sentencing, and that the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, taking into account the following circumstances: Defendant A’s age, gender and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unfasible and unreasonable. Thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

B. Defendant B’s crime of this case requires strict punishment against Defendant B, taking into account the following: (a) Defendant B’s employee in collusion with Defendant C, issued and received false tax invoices as if there was a normal commodity transaction between Company C and I; (b) submit the total of tax invoices by individual seller; (c) issued and received false tax invoices as the operator of the I Company; and (d) submitted a list of total tax invoices by individual seller as the operator of the I Company; and (e) submitted the list of total tax invoices by individual seller as the operator of the I Company.

However, it is true that Defendant B was divided into some of his mistakes, Defendant B did not have the same criminal record, and Defendant B had the purpose of evading taxes.