The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment and fine of six billion won) is too unreasonable.

2. After the Defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigative agency, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and expressed his attitude to repent of his mistake.

It seems that the actual profit gained by the defendant from the crime is not significant.

There is no criminal record for the defendant.

However, the instant crime was committed by the Defendant, along with his accomplice, issued false sales tax invoices using the so-called “exploitan company” and thereby evaded value-added tax. The supply price of false sales tax invoices has reached approximately KRW 30.6 billion by repeating the crime for about five months, and the value of evaded value-added tax is large to KRW 2.9 billion.

Such crimes are not good in that they interfere with tax order by making it difficult for the State to impose and collect taxes, and cause losses to the National Treasury, thereby damaging the tax justice by passing the burden on the general public.

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under repeated crime period.

From 2010 to 2014, the Defendant began to fleeing life for a long period of about 10 years before he/she surrenders himself/herself to an investigation agency and again surrenders himself/herself to the police agency on April 2020.

In addition to these circumstances, when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, as well as all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health condition, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and reasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the defendant.