All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal - The sentence of the lower court on the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the sentence of 2 years of suspended sentence and fine of 350 million won in the imprisonment of October, Defendant B: the fine of 20 million won in the imprisonment of 10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

We examine whether the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable in light of the content of the specific case.

1. First, in relation to Defendant A, the lower court: (a) issues the Defendant with false entry; (b) the supply price of the tax invoice issued or received by false entry is a large amount exceeding KRW 4 billion; (c) the Defendant recognized and reflects the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant was prevented from committing the instant crime to secure customers; (c) the Defendant did not have any purpose of tax evasion; and (d) the Defendant was only subject to a fine under the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. in 199 and the Labor Standards Act in 2018, except for the previous criminal records written in the original judgment.