The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a criminal case against C (Tgu District Court Decision 2015Kadan581, hereinafter “relevant criminal case”), the Defendant was present as a witness and made a false statement contrary to memory.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

Article 153 of the Criminal Act provides that when a person who has committed perjury makes a confession before a judgment on the relevant case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted. Since there is no restriction on the procedure of confession, there is no restriction on the procedure of confession, it shall include not only the voluntary confession against the investigative agency, but also the confession by the examination conducted by the court or the investigative agency as a defendant or suspect of the perjury case.

(2) According to the records, the Defendant, at the second trial of the lower court on June 23, 2016, testified that the facts charged of the instant case were recognized on the second trial of the lower court on the following day: (a) the fact that the Defendant, who issued the above evidence, was currently pending in the appellate trial ( Daegu District Court Decision 2008Do6566, Sept. 25, 2008, etc.) is significant in this court; and (b) the Defendant, on June 23, 2016, which was before the judgment of the said case became final and conclusive, is recognized.

Therefore, even though the defendant should have been given the requisite mitigation or exemption of punishment in accordance with Article 153 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below omitted this, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the reduction or exemption of punishment in perjury, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant withdraws his confession at the time of the trial, and again denies the facts charged of this case. However, as long as the defendant made a confession at the original trial, he shall do so after it.