2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment in the appellate court’s judgment, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime is that the Defendant issues a false large amount of tax invoices exceeding a total of two billion won, and is a serious crime that interferes with the State’s imposition and collection right and damages its tax justice. The instant crime is heavier than the Defendant’s liability.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant as sentencing factors have already been fully considered in the original judgment, and new circumstances or changes in special circumstances that could be reflected in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the original judgment.

In addition, taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, it is difficult to say that the sentencing of the lower court is excessively heavy beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant'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.

[However, since it is determined that there is no risk of actual disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of the defendant's right to defend, Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure applicable to the crime in the application of the relevant law of criminal procedure, "Article 10 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act", and "Article 10 (3) 1 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Amended by Act No. 16108, Dec. 31, 2018)" shall be corrected ex officio as