Meanwhile, although the Defendant filed an appellate brief with the head of Incheon Detention House on July 2, 2020, the Defendant’s right to appeal had already ceased to exist as long as it is evident in the record that he/she did not file a petition of appeal within seven days from September 21, 2017, which is the date that the lower judgment was declared, and thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate reason for appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the lower judgment, the grounds for ex officio examination for

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court deemed that the crime of this case was committed by issuing or having been issued a false tax invoice despite the absence of the fact that the Defendant supplied or received the actual goods. This is not a serious crime that disturbs the national tax collection order, seriously damages the tax justice, and is not good for the general public to commit a serious crime that undermines the public’s awareness of compliance with the sound commercial order and faithfully performing the duty to pay taxes, and that the total sum of the supply values, such as the tax invoice issued

On the other hand, considering favorable circumstances such as the fact that the amount of profit earned by the defendant from such crime is not so significant, the defendant has been actively planning or leading the crime only in F and C, and that the defendant has not actively planned or led the crime, and the fact that the defendant confessions all of the crimes of this case and is against himself/herself, the defendant has taken into account the age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime and circumstances after the crime.