Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant B and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced by Defendant B to Defendant B (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, and collection of penalty for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by Defendant C C to Defendant C (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (Defendant B)

A. The judgment of the court below regarding the consolidated hearing against the defendant B was rendered, and the defendant B filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2. The court decided to consolidate each of the above appeal cases. On the other hand, the crime of the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 with respect to the defendant B is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 with respect to the defendant B cannot be exempt from all reversal.

B. According to the relevant legal principles, Article 153 of the Criminal Act, 1) a person who has committed perjury under Article 152 (1) of the same Act shall be mitigated or exempted from punishment, if he/she surrenders himself/herself to the court prior to the judgment or disciplinary action on the above case becomes final and conclusive, and the confession prior to such a final and conclusive judgment shall be provided for as a reason for the necessary mitigation or exemption, and there is no limitation under any Acts and subordinate statutes with respect to the above confession procedure. Thus, there is no limitation under the above Acts and subordinate statutes, not only the voluntary confession against the agencies dealing with the above confession procedure, but also the confession by the court or investigation agency as the defendant or suspect of the perjury case by the examination of the court or investigation agency is included in the concept of the above confession (see Supreme Court Decision 73Do1639, Nov. 27, 197). 2) In light of the relevant legal principles related to the above determination, in light of health class, record, etc., as to this case, the Busan District Court's final and conclusive judgment of August 28, 2015.