1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

2. Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

3...

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A1”) and Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant B”) did not interfere with the perjury in relation to Article 250(1) of the first instance judgment, even though there was any fact that Defendant B met on the date stated in the facts charged, Defendant A did not provide phiphones, and ② did not interfere with Defendant B’s perjury in relation to Article 2016(1) of the first instance judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year, ten months, confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasons for ex officio appeal as to Defendant B prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

When a person who committed a crime of perjury surrenders himself/herself to the court before the judgment or disciplinary action on the case in which he/she committed the perjury becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted (Article 153 of the Criminal Act). Defendant B, on September 6, 2016, prior to the final and conclusive judgment of the court below on September 7, 2016, led to the confession of a crime of perjury, and thus, Defendant B ought to be mitigated or exempted from punishment.

Nevertheless, the part of the judgment of the court below which omitted it is erroneous in the violation of Article 153 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, shall be reversed.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A

A. According to the facts and circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant A provided philopon to the Defendant B as of the date and time indicated in the facts charged, and the Defendant A instigated the perjury to the Defendant B in relation to Article 2016 (1) of the High Court Decision 2016 Go-Ma250 (Seoul High Court Order 2016 Go-Ma646 (1) of the original facts charged. Thus, the Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, Defendant A recognized the crime of medication and possession of phiphonephones, and narcotics with Defendant A’s cooperation in the investigation.