The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

According to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, when a person who commits an accusation under Article 156 of the Criminal Act surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted. As such, confession prior to the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a requisite mitigation or exemption of punishment.

In addition, there is no limitation on the procedure of confession as to the procedure of confession, and therefore, it is clear that the Defendant or the suspect of the instant case was present as a witness at a trial court dealing with the instant case or a trial court dealing with the said case, and that his report was false before being present at the trial court, and that the Defendant or the suspect in the instant case was found to have been false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2783, Jun. 14, 2012; 2016Do10418, Sept. 8, 2016). Since the Defendant recognized the instant facts charged in the instant case at the trial court, it is necessary to reduce or exempt the Defendant from punishment pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act.

However, the lower court did not take such measures.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confession, which is a reason for the necessary reduction or exemption of punishment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.