beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the form of punishment) of the lower court (e.g., the first and second crimes listed in No. 1 through No. 49 as shown in Appendix II attached to the lower court in the original judgment: Fines of KRW 10 million; and crimes listed in No. 50 through No. 99 as indicated in the same Table in the second judgment of the lower court: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year; three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. The following facts are favorable: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the crimes in this case and reflects the depth thereof; (b) each of the crimes listed in Appendix II Nos. 1 through 49 as indicated in the attached Table II as indicated in the judgment of the court below should be considered at the same time as the facts recorded in the judgment of the court below; and (c) there is no record of punishment for the same crime.
However, in full view of all other circumstances, including the fact that each crime of this case by the Defendant reported value-added tax at the tax office, submitted a false statement to the effect that the goods were supplied, and issued a false tax invoice despite the absence of the supply of the goods by buyer, and the quality of the crime is not good. The amount of the false tax invoice issued by the Defendant is considerable, and the past records punished by the crime of this case include two times, and other circumstances that are the conditions for the sentencing of this case as indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be reasonable, and the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not unreasonable.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio, and on August 31, 2015 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below (for 2 pages 4 of the judgment of the court below), the correction is made to " July 31, 2015".
.