2. In light of the fact that perjury is a crime of which the judicial function of the State is protected by the law, and the Defendants made a false statement after being sworn as a witness, and the fact that the perjury is denied even at present, the liability for the crime is not easy.

However, in the criminal case where the Defendants were judged as co-defendant as co-defendant, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants determined whether to exercise the right to refuse to testify, even if the Defendants made a false statement without exercising the right to refuse to testify despite being notified of the right to refuse to testify, even if they made a false statement without exercising the right to refuse to testify, they can be punished for perjury.

The accused's perjury did not change the existence of a criminal case by affecting the outcome of the trial, and rather it seems that it was reflected in the sentencing.

There is no criminal record for the Defendants, and in the case of Defendant A, there is no record of punishment exceeding fine, and in the case of Defendant B, the crime of this case and the crime of which judgment in the original judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and it is necessary to consider equity in the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(

As above, comprehensively taking into account the unfavorable or favorable circumstances to the Defendants and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendants’ age, career, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is unfair to the extent that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too uneasible.