The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

(2) the date of this judgment.

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the part of the facts charged in the instant case and found the Defendant not guilty of the part infringing on a structure. Accordingly, on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair, the prosecutor appealeded on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair, as to the part infringing on a structure and the part without fault, and the appellate court prior to the return was entirely dismissed by the prosecutor and the Defendant.

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed on the conviction part, and the Supreme Court reversed ex officio the conviction part of the judgment before remand and remanded it to the court of first instance.

Therefore, since the part on the intrusion of a building for which a prosecutor did not appeal has been separated and confirmed, the scope of the trial after the return is limited to the part without the intention of the prosecutor.

3. In light of Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, if a person who committed an offense without a complaint under Article 156 of the Criminal Act makes a confession or the acceptance of a punishment before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted. Thus, confession prior to the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a requisite mitigation or exemption of punishment.

In addition, there is no limitation on the procedure of confessions as to the institution dealing with the reported case as a witness, or the full bench dealing with the reported case, and it is not clear that the report made before being present as a witness was a false fact, but it is also included in the concept of confessions by the court or investigation agency as the accused or suspect of the accused or suspect in the case (see Supreme Court Decision 9 April 9, 2004).