2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

Defendant

A issued a false tax account statement equivalent to KRW 100 million for the purpose of obtaining a loan under the name of the Defendant Company.

The crime committed above is deemed to be detrimental to the tax justice and sound commercial transaction order by making it difficult for the State to impose and collect taxes, thereby significantly disturbing tax order, and transferring the burden to the general public, and thus, such crime is not good.

In addition, considering the overall sentencing circumstances as shown in the records and arguments of this case including favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the Defendants, and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, the lower court’s sentence is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even considering the various circumstances alleged by the Defendants on the grounds of appeal.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendants' appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.