2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and went against the judgment of the lower court.

The defendant's perjury did not affect the result of the trial of the related case, and the defendant did not have the same criminal record.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, perjury is a serious crime that interferes with the proper judicial function of the state and damages the people's trust in justice and trial, and requires strict punishment.

The testimony of the defendant was an important issue in related cases.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime (the Defendant, in the relevant case, led to the confession of the truth that C was absent from the judgment of the lower court, and continued to deny the crime from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court even though the said judgment became final and conclusive), etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because its punishment is too unreasonable.

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