The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The lower court’s imprisonment (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination: (a) pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, if a person who committed an act without accusation voluntarily surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on a case on which a false fact was reported becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted. Article 153 of the Criminal Act includes cases where, as a result of the investigation of a criminal complaint case, a public prosecution against the defendant is revealed as the result of the investigation of the criminal complaint case, and a decision of non-prosecution has been made against the defendant and the trial procedure has not yet been initiated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7293, Aug. 1, 2018). As to the instant case, health department, while the defendant denied the facts charged at the lower court, the defendant led to the confession of the facts charged at the trial, and the fact that the criminal prosecution against the defendant was not established as a result of the recognition of the defendant’s non-guilty accusation against an investigative agency.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below was unable to be maintained in this respect, since the grounds for the necessary reduction and exemption of the punishment against the defendant have occurred in the trial.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the trial of the court below is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment below, except for the case where the "part of the defendant's testimony" in the first instance judgment is changed to the "court testimony of the defendant". Thus, it is true in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.