The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to perjury in the judgment of the defendant, the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in the case of perjury: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of probation, observation of protection, community service 240 hours, perjury as stated in the judgment: 5 million won) that the court below made by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

The lower court, on the judgment that the Defendant led to confession and perjury, applied Article 153 of the Criminal Act, which provides that “When a person who has committed perjury makes a confession or surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the relevant case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment therefor shall be mitigated or remitted,” respectively, and mitigated by law.

However, according to the records of this case, in the case of the Seoul High Court No. 2013No. 2432 that the defendant instigated F to perjury, such as the crime of perjury in the judgment, the judgment became final and conclusive on March 27, 2014; ② the case of perjury No. 898, which the defendant raised the above perjury, was final and conclusive on June 20, 2015; ③ the defendant was found to have led to the date of the second trial of the court below on October 7, 2015, which was after each of the above judgments became final and conclusive, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on statutory mitigation or exemption of perjury, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by applying Article 153 of the Criminal Act to the above crime of perjury and perjury.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.