2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court should respect the sentencing of the first instance court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The facts that the Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case from the court of the court below from the court of the court below, divided his mistake, and reflected in depth, that the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same crime, and that the Defendant’s family members and branch members appear to have a ties in family or society, etc., are favorable to the Defendant. Each of the crimes of this case is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the previous conviction already finalized against the Defendant and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the equity between

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed in the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant issued or received a false tax invoice with a content that does not conform to the substance of the transaction for profit by using business registration under another’s name; (b) the total value of supply and the frequency of the crime; and (c) such an act is not good in light of the nature and circumstances of the crime; and (d) the criminal that may interfere with the

In full view of the following circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not determined that the sentence of the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.