A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act of ex officio determination, in a case where a person who committed a false accusation reported a false fact, confessions or surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted.

In the past, the defendant led to confession of the facts charged in this case, and it is evident that he was prior to the judgment on the case because the defendant did not institute a public prosecution against D and E due to confinement, etc. and his judgment became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is because the punishment for the defendant should be reduced or exempted in accordance with the above provision.

3. As such, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the error of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court is as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, except that the phrase “the defendant’s partial statement” in the summary of the evidence in the judgment below as “the defendant’s trial testimony” is “the defendant’s trial testimony”. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 156 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing as prescribed by Articles 157, 153, and 55(1)3 (a) of the Criminal Act for statutory mitigation has been committed on the grounds of sentencing, since the defendant had no person who was in danger of being unfairly punished, and thereby has interfered with the criminal justice functions of the country. In particular, the defendant was faced with a crisis of loss in civil procedure.