Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months.

except that this judgment.

2. In full view of the circumstances that the lower court rendered the judgment on Defendant A’s appeal on the grounds of sentencing and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentencing with Defendant A is determined to be reasonable by fully taking into account the various sentencing grounds alleged by Defendant A, and it does not seem unfair because it is too unreasonable. Defendant A deposited KRW 2 million with Defendant B in the first instance court, but it is difficult to view that such circumstance falls under the sentencing grounds to the extent that the lower court’s punishment should be mitigated.

As such, Defendant A’s above argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by Defendant B prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal.

According to the records, it is acknowledged that Defendant B led to the confession of the crime of this case on March 22, 2017 after the judgment of the case where the perjury was proved as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below. Defendant B became final and conclusive on March 14, 2017, which was after the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive. Article 153 of the Criminal Act provides that the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted only when a person who committed perjury makes a confession or voluntarily surrenders before the judgment or disciplinary action of the above-mentioned case becomes final and conclusive. However, in this case, the court below erred by applying Articles 153 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B was not maintained.

4. Conclusion

(a) part of the dismissal;