Defendant .

A. Defendant A: The respective punishment of the lower judgment (the first instance judgment: imprisonment of 2 years, 80 hours, community service, and second instance: imprisonment of 2 years, 2 years of probation, observation of protection, and 160 hours community service) is too unreasonable.

B. DefendantO: The punishment of the second instance judgment (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasons for ex officio appeal as to Defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

Defendant

A filed an appeal against the above defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of second instance, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each of the above appeal cases.

Each of the crimes committed by the lower judgment convicting the above Defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part against the above Defendant among the lower judgment and the lower judgment of Article 1 and the second instance cannot be maintained.

3. Although there are favorable grounds for sentencing, such as the following: (a) examining the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing by DefendantO; (b) the confession of the offense; (c) the confession of the offense; and (d) there was no criminal conviction exceeding the suspension of the execution of imprisonment or imprisonment; and (c) the Defendant A was not subject to punishment due to the accusation of the above Defendant; (d) taking into account the reasons for unfavorable sentencing, such as the fact that the crime of false accusation is very bad; and (e) the age, family relation, economic situation; (e) the background and motive leading to the offense; and (e) all other matters concerning the sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the judgment of the court below of the second instance is judged to be appropriate; and (e) there is no change in circumstances to be considered

4. In conclusion, the part concerning Defendant A among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance is reversed ex officio as above, and thus, the judgment on the above Defendant’s unfair argument of sentencing is omitted.