2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Perjury requires strict punishment as an offense impeding the appropriate exercise of jurisdiction, which is the judicial authority of the State, and the discovery of substantial truth.

In addition, the perjury of one defendant had an impact on the trial results in the related criminal case(the first trial).

However, the Defendant promised to receive, or promise to receive, economic benefits in return for perjury as the first offender.

There is no evidence to see, and the confession was made before the confirmation of the relevant criminal case.

In full view of all the conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, background leading to the instant crime, and health condition, the lower court’s sentence may not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to have been too uneased so far as the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.