All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court's sentence: 6 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service, 2 years of suspended execution and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, this Court tried by examining the appeal cases against the two original judgments by combining them, and each of the crimes in the decision of the original court are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the original judgment cannot be maintained any more.

3. According to the conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment is again rendered as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the criminal facts of the defendant recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding parts of each judgment of the court below. Thus, all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Articles 156 of the Criminal Act, Articles 352 and 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Articles 157, 153, and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (i.e., the crime of false accusation because of the confession), which are statutory mitigation;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for the suspended sentence) was that the Defendant filed a lawsuit against E claiming a loan by asserting that there was still false claim despite having been repaid KRW 13 million from E. In addition, D, in order to obtain favorable results in the above civil procedure, stating that D, who was delegated by the Defendant for the collection of claims from E, has repaid KRW 13 million with the Defendant’s permission, at will, even though D, with the Defendant’s permission.