위증
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the extent that the punishment (3 million won in penalty) imposed by the court below is too unfased.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, Article 153 of the Criminal Act provides that, if a person who has committed perjury makes a confession before the judgment on the said case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted. Since there is no restriction as to the procedure of confession, there is no restriction as to the procedure of confession, the confession shall include not only voluntary confession against the investigation agency, but also the confession by the examination conducted by the court or the investigation agency as the defendant or the suspect of the perjury case (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do666, Sept. 25, 2008, etc.). The Suwon District Court 2015 Gowon District Court 676, which issued the above evidence, was remarkably established on August 19, 2016. According to the record, the defendant testified at the prosecution on April 11, 2016, which was before the judgment on the said case became final and conclusive.
It is recognized that the confession was made by statements.
Therefore, even though the defendant should have been given the requisite mitigation or exemption of punishment in accordance with Article 153 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below omitted is erroneous in misunderstanding the legal principles on the reduction or exemption of punishment in perjury, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (it does not interfere with the application of the above Article of the Criminal Procedure Act even if the defendant withdraws confession after the confession was made in the court of the court below, and withdraws it again after the confession was made in the investigation agency, and the confession was reversed after the confession was made in the investigation agency). 3. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to perjury.
[Judgment which is used again] Criminal facts and summary of evidence, as recognized by the court, are the same.