The judgment below

The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Defendant

B, C-.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B, C, and D (Defendant B, Defendant C: one year of imprisonment, and Defendant D: 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A, B, and C) (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, two years of suspended execution, and one year of community service order), Defendant B, and C) is unreasonable as it is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant D’s ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Defendant led to a confession of the instant crime of aiding and abetting the Defendant, thereby resulting in a requisite reduction or exemption of punishment under Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the lower court against the Defendant was no longer maintained.

B. We examine the defendants B, C, and prosecutor's unfair sentencing argument about each of the above defendants, and the prosecutor's unfair sentencing argument together.

The crime of false accusation interferes with the proper exercise of the penal authority and the state's judicial function, and imposes the risk of criminal punishment on a person who is in danger of being in danger of being in danger of criminal punishment. The criminal liability is heavy, the Defendants have formulated and play a role in setting up a detailed plan to have the person who is in danger of being in danger of being in danger of being in danger of being in danger of being in danger of being in danger of committing the crime. The crime of false accusation is very poor, and the circumstances after the crime of this case are considerably poor, and the circumstances after the crime of this case are not good enough.

On the other hand, the Defendants appear to have an attitude that both the Defendants recognize and reflect on the commission of their crimes, and that they did not reach the prosecution, and that they did not intend to punish the Defendants, and that they did not have any record of punishment exceeding the fine, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

The court below held the Defendants as above.