1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years and a fine not exceeding 3.1 billion won.

3. The defendant is above.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and fine 6.2 billion won) is unfair because it is too unreasonable (the Defendant asserted that there was an error of mistake as to facts in the lower judgment, but the Defendant withdrawn the aforementioned argument on the first trial date of the first instance trial). 2. The lower court, in collusion with other accomplices, purchased scrap metal traded as non-data through a scrap metal bromoer, and delivered tax invoices to the seller, issued them, and delivered them, and concealed purchase transactions by receiving an amount equivalent to value added from the seller by cash withdrawal, and evaded value added tax of up to KRW 6.1 billion by closing the place of business.

The above crimes committed by Defendant 1 make it difficult for the State to impose and collect taxes, thereby significantly disturbing tax order, and passing the burden on the general public, thereby damaging the tax justice, and the quality of such crimes is not somewhat weak.

On the other hand, the defendant was punished for the same crime or was sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment.

As the president of the so-called branch, the degree of participation in the crime is relatively minor compared to other accomplices, and the profits actually acquired through the crime seems to have not been much significant.

The defendant is voluntarily present at an investigative agency to commit a crime, and is able to commit a crime in depth, and is not in good economic condition.

In full view of all the circumstances, including these circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable compared to its liability.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and therefore, the defendant's appeal is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.