2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness exists in the area unique to the first deliberation regarding the determination of sentencing, and the fact that there is a change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first trial, and that the first deliberation sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) Perjury is an offense that impedes the proper exercise of the State’s judicial power by making it difficult to discover the substantial truth, and thus requires strict punishment, and it appears that the Defendant repeatedly makes a false statement in the trial, etc.

However, in full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court’s punishment was too unfasible and has exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by taking account of the following: (a) there was no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; (b) the Defendant’s perjury appears not to have a substantial effect on the outcome of the trial; and (c) other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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