A. Defendant A1) Article 151(2) of the Criminal Act provides that “When a person who is a relative or a person living together commits a crime under the preceding paragraph on his behalf, he shall not be punished.” As for the crime of this case, it is reasonable to view that the exception between relatives cannot be applied even in a case where the defendant committed an act of aiding and abetting a criminal by having a third party attend an investigation agency for Cho Jae in order to make a false confession. 2) In light of the various sentencing factors in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of Defendant C in the instant case, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (fine 12 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. A person who is in a family relationship under Article 151(2) of the Criminal Act regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e., a person who conceals an offender from his/her relative or his/her cohabiting family, but, in cases where such person aids and abets a third party to commit an offense, he/she cannot be exempted from the liability

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do1382 delivered on September 24, 1996, etc.). On the other hand, the Defendant had a third party make a false statement at an investigative agency B despite being aware that his knin C had committed a crime of habitual gambling, which constitutes a fine or heavier punishment. This does not constitute a case where a relative under Article 151(2) of the Criminal Act had a criminal suspect escape, and thus, the Defendant cannot be exempted from the criminal liability as an attempted criminal.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

3. We examine the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing, and the defendants recognize all of the crimes of this case and reflect their mistakes, the defendants have no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the defendants A are for kyman C.