2. B

According to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, when a person who committed a crime without accusation under Article 156 of the same Act surrenders himself/herself to a confession or voluntarily surrenders before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the relevant punishment shall be mitigated or remitted. As such, the confession procedures prior to such a final and conclusive judgment are stipulated as the grounds for requisite mitigation or exemption. In addition, since there is no legal restriction as to the above confession procedures, the confession procedures for the organization dealing with the reported case shall be again present at the adjudication division dealing with the reported case as a witness again, and it shall be suspected that the reported case was false and the report was made by the court or investigation agency, as the defendant or suspect, and shall be included in the concept of the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 73Do1639, Jan. 1, 1973; 75Do316, Feb. 22, 197; 204Do831, Apr. 9, 2004).

The lower court found that the Defendants’ confessions by the Defendants were all the cases against the Defendants’ incompetence and perjury, etc.

The Court rejected the defense counsel's assertion that there are grounds for the necessary reduction or exemption of punishment under each of the above provisions on the grounds that the confession after the determination does not constitute grounds for the necessary reduction or exemption under Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act

However, according to the records, the case of forging private documents against Q, which the defendants testified, was finalized on September 25, 2008, but there was no evidence to know that the judgment was final and conclusive since the defendants filed a public prosecution against the above E, Q, I, and P. Meanwhile, in the investigation process of the above accusation case, the defendants' non-guilty suspicion was revealed, and the defendants withdrawn all the remaining grounds for appeal except unfair sentencing on the 8th day of the court below, and the defendants' defense counsel submitted a summary of oral argument that "if the defendants acknowledged all criminal facts, there are grounds for a necessary reduction or exemption of punishment under Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act" after the closing of argument in the court below.

If so, the court below should first examine whether the defendants made a false judgment on the case to E, Q, I, and P, and further examine whether the judgment became final and conclusive, and further, the purport of the defendants' withdrawal of all the remaining grounds for appeal except unfair sentencing is the confession of the facts charged in the instant case, and then should have taken necessary measures for reduction and exemption of punishment under Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act in a case where the defendants make a confession of false facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below did not take the remaining measures to mislead the defendants to believe that the judgment of the accusation case against E, etc. became final and conclusive, but did not constitute the grounds for necessary reduction or exemption of punishment pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confession, which is the grounds for necessary reduction or exemption of punishment, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining allegations in the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is entirely reversed (the part of each of the above perjury of the defendants against whom one punishment is imposed on the relation of the above-mentioned crimes and the substantive concurrent crimes), and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Il-il

Justices Min Il-young

Chief Justice Park Jong-young