The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the first instance, the confession of a crime that led to the trial of the party and the confession of a mistake reflects the depth of the crime (However, since the defendant led to confession after the confirmation date of the perjury case ( April 2, 2016), the necessary mitigation provision of Article 153 of the Criminal Act cannot be applicable to the confession of the defendant under Article 153 of the Criminal Act) is favorable.

However, perjury is an unfavorable circumstance that makes it difficult to find the substantial truth of the court so that it is necessary to strictly punish a crime that interferes with the judicial action of the state, and that the parties have perjury about matters that are not known or difficult to understand.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the age, character and conduct, the environment, etc. of the defendant and all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable even if the newly discovered sentencing data, such as the confession of the defendant, are considered.

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