All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two months and for four months, respectively.

(b).

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the court below (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

If a person who has committed an offense without an ex officio judgment, makes a confession or surrenders before the judgment or disciplinary action on the relevant case is finalized, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted.

(Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act. However, the defendants led to the confession at the original court, and criminal cases against D with respect to the false accusation committed by the defendants are clear prior to the conclusion of the judgment after the disposition of non-prosecution is rendered. As such, the judgment of the court below omitted the punishment against the defendants should be reduced or exempted in accordance with Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, but it is impossible to maintain it as it is.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

Criminal facts against the defendant recognized by this court and summary of the evidence shall be as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below.

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 156 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 156 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Statutory mitigations under Articles 157, 153, and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39 (1) of the same Act for concurrent crimes;

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant B) Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration favorable circumstances in the foregoing);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order (Defendant B) and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. is a false accusation against the Defendants, despite having received the payment of the 'de-line' price from the Appellant D, and the quality of the crime is not weak.

However, the defendants make confessions and repent their errors in depth, and the defendants do not have the same criminal records.