2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, criminal record, circumstances leading to the instant crime, and motive leading up to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime do not seem to have a significant benefit. However, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character, environment, criminal record, and the fact that the total value of sales and purchase tax invoices issued by the Defendant in falsity is a large amount of KRW 1,951,00,00; and (b) the amount of the supply value of the sales and purchase tax invoices issued by the Defendant is a significant amount of KRW 1,951,00,000, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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