The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (in six months of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution and two hundred hours of social service) is too unreasonable.

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, there is no limitation on the law, and thus, it is hard to find that the defendant or suspect of the case was present again at the court dealing with the reported case as a witness to the institution dealing with the case or the trial division dealing with the case, and that his report was false before being present at the court, as well as that the defendant or suspect of the case was found to have been a false fact, and is also included in the concept of confessions as above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2783, Jun. 14, 2012; 2016Do10418, Sept. 8, 2016). In this case, the health care unit and the defendant denied the facts charged at the investigative agency, but recognized the facts charged of this case on the second trial date of the court below, so the defendant must be mitigated or exempted from the necessary 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.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.