All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) The above Defendant alleged the misunderstanding of the fact that he actually driven a vehicle in the police investigation process, and made a false statement as if he driven the vehicle.

Even if the above defendant's act was actively committed by the investigative agency and was omitted, it cannot be deemed that the discovery or arrest of the criminal was difficult or impossible. Thus, the crime is not committed.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) against the above Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the court below against Defendant B (unfair argument of sentencing) is too unreasonable. It is so unfair that the sentence of the court below against the above Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. An offender provided for in Article 151 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that makes it difficult or impossible to act as a criminal justice such as investigation, trial, and execution of sentence with respect to an offender by means other than concealment of the offender. There is no restriction on the method. In addition, the crime is not required to interfere with the actual operation of criminal justice as a dangerous offender, and the act of causing interference with the arrest and detection of a criminal offender by making a false statement to an investigation agency by a person who is not the criminal. It is deemed that the above crime constitutes the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1016, Jun. 14, 1996; 200Do4078, Nov. 24, 200).

The fact that he has made a statement and responded to the measurement of drinking.