Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The court below sentenced the defendant to four months of imprisonment.

The defendant asserts that the above-mentioned sentence is too unfasible, so the prosecutor is too unfased and unfair.

Judgment

The Defendant testified to the effect that, in the trial proceedings of fraud cases involving the use of the computer, etc. by the Suwon District Court No. 2015No. 6839, the Defendant made a false testimony to the effect that “The co-defendant A of the lower court, who introduced the interim recruitment of the licensing organization, made a false statement to the effect that “the Defendant released money that he was aware of the criminal criminal of Bosing and received as a result of the withdrawal.”

The criminal liability is heavy in that the defendant instigated a perjury on an important part of the establishment of the crime and attempted to escape criminal punishment.

There is a record of punishment of a fine of KRW 1 million for a year of suspension of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny in 2013, and a fine of KRW 3 million for a crime of stolen in 2015.

On the other hand, in the above Suwon District Court 2015No. 6839, where evidence was issued, the defendant was convicted of the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance. However, considering the circumstances agreed with some victims, the court of first instance sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for up to five months on March 30, 2016. Since the judgment became final and conclusive on June 17, 2016, it seems that the judgment did not directly affect the result of the trial.

(2) In addition, on March 20, 2017, the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime on the grounds that he/she was under interrogation of the prosecution (Evidence No. 3967 of the evidence record) and against his/her mistake.

The equity between the defendant and the defendant who was sentenced to a final judgment (five months of imprisonment with prison labor for aiding and abetting fraud, such as computer), should be taken into account.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is determined within the scope of the sentencing discretion, and it cannot be deemed that it is too heavy or unreasonable.

In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is reasonable.