The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

1. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of probation, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act of the judgment ex officio provides for the confessions before the judgment or disciplinary action of the reported case is determined to be mitigated or exempted, in a case where the person who committed the offense voluntarily surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action becomes final and conclusive.

The above confession procedure does not have any limitation under the law, and thus, it is hard to find out that the defendant or suspect of a high case was a false fact before he appeared as a witness at the court dealing with the reported case or at the court dealing with the case, and that his report was a false fact, and that it is also included in the concept of confession by the court or investigation agency as the defendant or suspect of a high case.

Meanwhile, the phrase “before the judgment becomes final and conclusive” under Article 153 of the Criminal Act includes the following cases: (a) the investigation of the accused’s complaint case reveals that the accused’s suspicion was revealed as a result of the investigation of the accused’s complaint case; and (b) the prosecution against the accused is not initiated as a result of a decision not to prosecute the accused; and (c) the trial procedure has not been initiated as to the accused’s person who was the accused (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7293, Aug. 1, 2018). According to the evidence examined by the lower court, the prosecution against the accused is discovered as a result of the investigation of the accused’s report case, and the prosecution procedure has not been initiated as a result of a decision not to prosecute the accused; and (b) the accused’s confession of the offense of this case in the investigative agency and the lower court

Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment cannot be maintained as it is, since it did not apply legal mitigation or exemption due to the confession against the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio.