The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant was made before the confirmation of the defendant's case against the defendant, and the defendant recognized the crime of each of the perjury of this case and reflects the mistake. Each of the perjury of this case does not affect the result of the trial of the first instance of the defendant case, and the defendant does not pay the economic compensation to A and B, and the defendant does not have any criminal record exceeding the same criminal record or fine, in favor of the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of each of the perjury of this case was committed with interference with the court's trial for finding the substantial truth and thus it is necessary to strictly punish it, and the fact that the contents of each of the perjury of this case are important as to the issues of the defendant's case is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, the age, character and conduct, the environment, the circumstances and results of each of the crimes in this case, etc., all of the sentencing conditions in this case and the result of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee.

1. Standards for types of punishment and of punishment;

(a) Type 1 (Perjury) (Special Perjury) mitigation element: Voluntary confession [Extent of Recommendation] mitigated area: One month to ten months of imprisonment;

(b) Punishment of perjury [Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (Perjury) (Special Perjury): Voluntary confession [Extent of Recommendation] mitigated area: One month to ten months of imprisonment;

2. In full view of the handling of multiple crimes [basic crime] perjury / [processing] Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to one year (a half of the maximum sentence scope of the basic crime) and three months (a half of the maximum sentence scope of the two crimes), etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.