The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, two years of probation) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged was the criminal facts that the Defendant: (a) prevented the Defendant, who was under a disturbance that C would escape from a stove a s tove a stove a s tove a s tove a stove with his face; and (b) brought about two weeks of treatment to C; (c) on August 12, 2010, at the Changwon District Court, sentenced him/her to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for obstruction of performance of official duties, etc.; and (d) the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 20, 2010.

(hereinafter “Related Judgment”. Accordingly, the Defendant was released from the workplace, and there was a need to cancel the above final judgment for reinstatement, and the Defendant was willing to file a charge of perjury with the police officer F who was dispatched to the scene at the time of the instant criminal trial, C, E, and at the time, present as a witness in the said criminal trial.

On April 22, 2014, the Defendant submitted a written complaint to the public service center of the Jinhae Police Station to the effect that “In fact, the complainant (the defendant is the defendant) was aware of the face of C as a witness in the court of the Defendant case, such as injury (such as Changwon District Court 2010Ra803, May 18, 2010) and June 10, 2010, the Defendant testified to the effect that “In fact, the complainant was punished for perjury as a false testimony,” despite the absence of the head’s face.”

However, as seen above, the Defendant was his own head, and he was found to have received the head of the above C.

Nevertheless, the Defendant filed a false complaint with C, E, and F for the purpose of criminal punishment of C, E, and F.

B. The prosecutor’s non-existence of judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion is a crime whose principal legal interest is the criminal justice or disciplinary right of the State, and thus, the Defendant’s quality of crime cannot be deemed to be minor.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant in the relevant case.