The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the Defendants (six months of imprisonment for each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendants as elements for sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There is no particular change in the situation that is the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, even though the defendants recognized the crime of this case, perjury is an offense that obstructs the proper exercise of judgment authority, which is a judicial action of the State, and the discovery of substantial truth, and there is a strong need to punish the defendants, and the defendants had the past history of having been punished several times, considering all the sentencing factors in the arguments of this case, including the defendants' age, character and behavior, environment, the background and motive leading to the crime of this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too excessive and it cannot be said that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendants' appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.