The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment and a fine of 6.5 billion won) is too unreasonable, and is also an excessive small amount of one-day conversion of the fine.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and aesthetic nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court solely on the ground that the sentence of sentencing in the appellate court differs from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing in its reasoning. The lower court only led the Defendant to commit the crime, and performed the role of delivering documents and withdrawing cash, etc. according to the direction of the accomplice C, and the actual gains acquired through the crime are much more than 00 million won, and the circumstances alleged in the lower court have already been favorable to the sentencing in the first instance court, and have sufficiently disturbeded the national tax justice.