2. As to perjury as stated in the judgment of the defendant, each of the eight months of imprisonment.

A. (1) Defendant (1) did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation of facts with respect to each fraud committed against K, N, and P.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (Article 1: 8 months of perjury imprisonment, 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor in each judgment, and 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor: 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (limited to the judgment of the court below of first instance) sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the punishment of perjury No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months in the judgment of the court below, and imprisonment with prison labor for ten months in each judgment of the court below)

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, the appeal case of the first and second judgment against the defendant was consolidated. Each of the first and second judgments of the court below is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of fraud under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act should be imposed with a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below rejected the above argument in detail under the title of "decision on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel" in the judgment of the court below, by asserting the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. The judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant and the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal.