The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below against the defendant in summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of three years, the fine of three billion won, and the imprisonment of six million won per day) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment heavier than the same criminal power or fine, and the confession of all the crimes in this case reflects his mistake, and the amount of profit acquired by the Defendant through the crime in this case appears not to reach the amount of value-added tax evaded, and the Defendant’s execution of detention of labor force, which is concurrently imposed, is likely to be higher than the amount of value-added tax evaded.

On the other hand, the Defendant, by establishing the so-called “large-scale coal company” for the purpose of evading taxes from the beginning, evaded large value-added taxes by fraud or other unlawful means, such as closed-end transactions with a structure that would make it impossible to make any profit if the value-added tax is not evaded. The instant crime is a serious criminal that disturbs the national tax collection order and seriously damages the tax justice, and the Defendant’s name was about KRW 3.1 billion of the value-added tax evaded by the Defendant, thereby incurring a big loss to the National Treasury.

In addition, considering the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines (the sentencing guidelines are not provided with respect to imprisonment of four to six years, and the amount of fines to be imposed concurrently), it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.