무고
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the penalty of the original judgment (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, in a case where a person who committed an offense without an accusation makes a confession or 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 pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act. According to the records, even though the Defendant appeared at the investigative agency and the first trial of the court below on the date, and led to the confession of the reported case in a state where the judgment on the reported case became final and conclusive, the court below committed a mistake in omitting the measures to reduce or exempt the punishment as necessary against the Defendant, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen above, and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act and Article 156 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;
1. Articles 157, 153, and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for statutory mitigation;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The circumstances and the crime of false accusation under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, including the fact that the defendant's reason for sentencing of sentencing under Article 334(1) reflects the wrongness while committing the crime, and that there is no other criminal power against the defendant, are a crime undermining the State's proper trial function, and that the crime in this case is not good, and that B, who intends to