2. The fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and reflected in the facts charged, the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the single concurrent relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the contents of perjury have not been accepted is favorable.

However, in full view of the facts charged in this case’s records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is appropriate, and the sentencing judgment by the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) it is necessary to punish the Defendant as an offense interfering with the discovery of substantial truth and thus infringing on the judicial power of the State; (b) the testimony was fully denied and perjury as shown in the facts charged in this case’s case’s case’s case’s case without any special reason.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.