특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable that the sentencing of the court below (the imprisonment of one year and six months, the detention in the workhouse for a period of 3 years of suspended execution, the fine of 40 million won, and the fine of 1 million won in the event of default in the above fine of one year and six months, converted into one day) is too unreasonable.
2. The sentencing on the basis of a statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.
In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.
Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. Of the circumstances cited by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the Defendant appears to have led and reflected the entire crime of this case among the circumstances cited on the grounds of appeal, and does not seem to have played an important role in the degree of participation compared to other accomplices, and the circumstances after the Defendant committed the crime, such as the normal circumstance concerning the motive for committing the crime that led to the occurrence of the crime by J, etc., and the fact that the Defendant discontinued the gas station after committing the crime, are all circumstances after the crime.