The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, fines for six hundred million won, suspension of execution for three years, etc.) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes from an investigative agency and reflects his mistake.

The defendant was involved in the crime of this case at the request of (State) E, a major customer, and the economic benefits actually acquired by the crime of this case are not significant.

There is no criminal power over the same kind of electricity or fine against the defendant.

The Defendant paid all taxes and additional taxes imposed in relation to the instant crime.

However, the defendant issued and received false tax invoices for two and three years for the purpose of receiving an amount equivalent to approximately two to three percent of the value of supply from the Dispute Settlement Co., Ltd. in excess of simple subparagraphs. In light of the motive, circumstance, frequency, etc. of the crime, the crime is not less complicated.

The sum of supply values of the false tax invoice of this case exceeds 5.8 billion won.

The crime of this case not only causes interference with the legitimate exercise of national tax collection authority, but also undermines the tax justice, disturbs the order of sound commercial transactions, and causes harm to the public’s awareness of compliance with the duty to pay taxes in good faith. The possibility of social criticism is also high.

In addition, if 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the various circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, family relationship, character and conduct, environment, etc. recorded in the record, the sentence of the lower court does not seem to be unfair, or too unreasonable.

The defendant's above assertion is with merit.