The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,500,000.

Defendant .

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the fine of KRW 3,500,000, Defendant B: fine of KRW 5,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the reasons for Defendant A’s appeal, Article 153 of the Criminal Act provides that “When a person who committed perjury makes a confession or surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the foregoing case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted.”

“.......”

However, according to the records of this case, Defendant A was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in Busan District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 4938, 8816 (Joint), which Defendant A issued a perjury and became final and conclusive on July 4, 2015 due to Defendant B’s failure to file an appeal against the Plaintiff in Busan District Court Decision 2015No. 660, the Busan District Court Decision 2015No. 2015. Defendant A could recognize the facts of confession of the crime of this case as the summary of his oral argument on September 24, 2015, which was after the institution of the prosecution of this case. Defendant A made a confession after the judgment of the above proven criminal case became final and conclusive, and thus, Defendant A cannot be

Nevertheless, in determining punishment against Defendant A, the lower court rendered legal mitigation by applying Article 153 of the Criminal Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on statutory requirements for perjury, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the part on Defendant A among the lower judgment cannot be maintained.

B. Defendant B, who led to the confession of the instant crime, and the confession of Defendant B before the instant case became final and conclusive, does not affect the outcome of the trial. The instant crime is based on the concurrent relationship between Defendant B and the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (which led to Defendant B’s perjury) established and the group of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and is subject to the same judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.