2. The lower court determined that perjury is a crime of impairing the fairness of the judiciary and disturbing the order of the judicial system; in light of the circumstances that, prior to the separation of pleading of the case in which the Defendant stated, if he did not make a false statement as stated in its reasoning, he/she recognized his/her crime; thus, there are circumstances that may consider the motive leading up to such false statement.

It seems that the defendant's perjury did not have a significant influence on the outcome of the trial of the above case, and that the defendant has led to a confession of the facts of perjury before the judgment of the above case became final and conclusive. The sentence was imposed by taking account of equity and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

The grounds for unfair sentencing (such as the benefit and protection of the victim of this case, motive for the crime, means and consequence of the crime) alleged by the prosecutor are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the sentence against the defendant, and the above conditions of sentencing have changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.