2. Determination perjury is an offense that interferes with the discovery of substantial truth and thus infringes on the State’s judicial power, and is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized and opposed to the instant crime; (b) some of the Defendant’s testimony was made on the ground of conviction against B in line with the testimony of E; (c) the Defendant’s testimony of the instant crime was rejected, and thus did not affect the outcome of the criminal procedure regarding B; (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate and the sentencing judgment by the lower court exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit, since the court below's punishment is too unfasible.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.