The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of each tax invoice listed in subparagraph 2-C and (d) of the facts constituting a crime against the defendant as stated in the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the defendant's transaction of inventory assets stored in a warehouse in the manner of possession and alteration in order to obtain a loan of movable property, and it is based on the actual transaction and it is issued or received by the defendant, and the prosecutor has already received a non-suspect

However, the court below issued or received each of the above tax invoices in a false manner.

In light of the above facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court [the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years, a fine of one billion won (one billion won)] is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court, as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

Accordingly, the lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the transaction of this part of this case, which was conducted on December 21, 2015 and December 24, 2015, is prepared, received, and delivered a tax invoice in the form of circular transaction (J) and each tax invoice is the same as the date of preparation, transaction items, supply price is identical or almost identical; (b) the transaction agreement in this part was prepared in a formal and lump form for the purpose of obtaining a security loan of movable property; (c) the price of the goods was also set up in line with the appearance of the transaction; and (d) the goods were kept in storage in a specific warehouse; and (e) the goods subject to the transaction was not carried out. In full view of the fact that there was no real transaction, it is reasonable to deem that the transaction constituted a processing transaction conducted only with documents, regardless of the existence of real property.