2. The crime of this case, although the Defendant did not supply goods, closed the business of the company operated after falsely entering and submitting the list of the total tax invoice by buyer. This may not only interfere with the legitimate exercise of the State’s right to tax collection, but also undermine the sound order of commercial transactions by encouraging so-called “unwritten transaction,” and considering the fact that the total value of supply of false tax invoices issued by the Defendant reaches approximately KRW 3.3 billion, a strict punishment against the Defendant is needed.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime, thereby contravening his mistake; (b) there is no record of criminal punishment other than fines; (c) the Defendant is currently working for day after the closure of the company that was operated by the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant raises his or her children due to negligence; and (c) other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive or circumstance of the crime; (d) the means and method of the crime; (e) details and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.