The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the judgment of the court below became unable to be maintained, on the ground that there was a necessary cause for reduction or exemption of punishment under Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act by making a confession of the instant accusation at the time when the Defendant was in the trial.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court is as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, except for adding “Defendant’s legal statement” to the column of the evidence of the judgment below, and thus, it is also cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, which are statutory mitigation (with respect to the crime of false accusation);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The crime of larceny of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act was committed after the defendant was punished by inflicting an injury on a person who was not a deceased person, and thus, the defendant was unaware of a deceased person with respect to the crime of larceny of this case. The crime of larceny of this case was committed twice by the defendant's cellular phone which was related to the deceased person before, and thus, the crime of larceny of this case is not weak.

However, since the defendant was in the first instance, all of the crimes of this case are recognized, there was no record that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, and the defendant was punished for a fine exceeding the fine.