The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months and a fine for 600,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is that the lower court’s punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment and a fine of six hundred thousand won) is too heavy or too uneasible (the Defendant). (The Defendant explicitly withdraws the remainder of the grounds excluding the unfair argument in sentencing at the first trial date of the first trial of the lower court, and made a statement to the effect that it would vary in light of the circumstances). 2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

According to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, when a person who commits an accusation under Article 156 of the Criminal Act surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted. As such, confession prior to the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a requisite mitigation or exemption of punishment.

In addition, there is no limitation on the procedure of confessions as above, and thus, it is hard to find out that the Defendant or the suspect of the instant case appeared as a witness to the institution dealing with the reported case or the full bench dealing with the said case before being present again, and that his report was a false fact, as well as that the Defendant or the suspect was examined by the court or the investigative agency, and also included in the concept of confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2783, Jun. 14, 2012; 2016Do10418, Sept. 8, 2016). In light of the above legal principles, the instant case was recognized as a health care unit, and the Defendant should be mitigated or exempted from the necessary mitigation of punishment pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act.

However, the lower court did not take such measures.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confession, which is a reason for the necessary reduction or exemption of punishment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, among the judgment below, each of the crimes of false accusation can not be maintained, and the above crimes of false accusation are committed.