Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In the case of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (1) 1 of the judgment, the two prices of the instant vehicles were owned by the Defendant, but at the time, the Defendant’s friendship, who was not the Defendant, was operating by lending the said vehicle, and the friendlys of the vehicle will use the vehicle by mandatory insurance.

As the defendant promised, he is not responsible for the operation of this case.

(2) In the case of the decision of KRW 2, the Defendant introduced J and delivered only the forms of accusation, which is not a joint principal offender for the crime of false accusation. (B) The sentence that the lower court rendered against the Defendant (No. 1: a fine of KRW 1,00,000, KRW 2: a fine of KRW 4 million) is too unreasonable.

2. On September 26, 2013, the Defendant, ex officio, was sentenced to imprisonment for six months with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) at the Ulsan District Court (Ulsan District Court 2013 order 2439) and two years of suspension of execution (Ulsan District Court 2013 order 2439), and on October 5, 2013 order ever became final and conclusive.

The crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) against the defendant of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of violation of the first decision of the court below against the defendant of Article 1 is a concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of violation of the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint injury) of which judgment has become final and conclusive shall be sentenced to punishment for the crime of the court below's decision in consideration of equity with the case of concurrent judgment pursuant

However, even in this case, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles and the argument of sentencing against the second judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court. Thus, the following determination is made (the two original judgments were joined in the first instance court, but the crime of the first instance judgment is in the relation of concurrent crimes with the crime established on October 5, 2013 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of the second instance judgment was committed after the above final judgment, and the crime of the second instance judgment and the judgment of the second instance judgment are committed after the above final judgment, and Article 37 of the Criminal Act is committed, respectively.