2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant led to the confession of the crime, and his mistake is repented, that the person under consideration was not subject to criminal punishment, and that the person under consideration is the person under consideration.

However, the crime of false accusation is not only a serious crime that interferes with the appropriate exercise of the state's criminal justice or disciplinary power, but also a serious crime that causes a person under severe punishment to be subject to criminal punishment or disciplinary measure, and the defendant has been subject to a fine, suspension of execution, and punishment for a limited period of time, and there is a record of being punished for the same kind of crime among them, but also commits the crime in this case without being aware of the period of suspension of execution due to fraud, and in addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, etc., it is not recognized that the court below's punishment is too undue.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. However, since it is obvious that “Article 55(1)3” in the judgment of the court below, “Article 55(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,” which is applicable to the confession mitigation clause, has been omitted by mistake, it is obvious that the Defendant’s appeal is ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure