The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses relating to witnesses shall be borne by the defendant among the costs of lawsuit in the original judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment prescribed by the court of the original instance (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant seems to have led to the confession and reflect on the crime.

There is also a circumstance that it is difficult to say that the health of the family members who appeal the vessel is not good.

Since the crime of this case is in a concurrent relationship between the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) and the crime of violation of the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc. for which judgment has become final and conclusive, it is necessary to determine punishment at the same time in consideration of equity

However, the criminal liability of the defendant who instigated the perjury regarding his crime is not against the law.

There are many criminal records against the defendant, and even during the suspended execution period, the crime was committed.

The court below did not actually interfere with the judicial action of the court due to the defendant (the defendant)'s crime.

Although the State stated “”, it is not acceptable to accept it in an irregular manner.

In addition, the crime of perjury is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, and as well, the heavy resources such as the increase in the burden of trial and time have been consumed due to the examination of witness for the reason that the defendant instigated the perjury.

In addition, the reason why the defendant denied the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) and even instigated perjury was intended to avoid the invalidation of suspended sentence by drawing time.

shall be presumed.

On August 23, 2017, which was the end of the suspended execution period, which was the date of July 4, 2017, the judgment was finalized on August 23, 2017 (the case was prosecuted on October 29, 2015, and was sentenced to the first instance judgment on November 17, 2016, and was sentenced to the appellate judgment on May 12, 2017). Furthermore, the said judgment was made late later after August 23, 2017, and Article 153 of the Criminal Act does not apply to the defendant.

The court of the court below determined the defendant's punishment in consideration of the above various positive and negative circumstances.