The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Defendant

A.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant A: the imprisonment of 10 months and the imprisonment of 1 year) of the lower court is too unreasonable; and

2. Determination

A. Although the judgment on Defendant A’s appeal against the instant perjury was prosecuted after Defendant A was prosecuted, Defendant B proposed that Defendant B would be sentenced to 20 million won each time when one year has elapsed since the sentence was extended in lieu of Defendant A’s crime, which was in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) by first proposing that Defendant B would be sentenced to the punishment. Notwithstanding the above Defendant B’s above perjury at the trial, Defendant B still appealed against the conviction and filed an appeal by asserting that “B is a thief,” and Defendant B still voluntarily surrenders the prosecution to commit the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case was denied, and the circumstances after the crime of this case was committed are very very unusual, and the circumstances after the crime of this case was committed are considered to be adequate in view of various circumstances, such as the age, character, and environment of Defendant A.

B. As to Defendant B’s appeal, Defendant B committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, and the crime of perjury is an offense that interferes with the court’s deliberation for discovering substantive truth and thus requires strict punishment as an offense that interferes with the State’s proper judicial function.

However, Defendant B, despite his perjury, was convicted in the appellate trial of the “violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” case against Defendant A on the ground that he voluntarily appeared at the prosecution and led to an attitude against his depth. As a result, Defendant B’s perjury did not affect the conclusion of the relevant criminal trial, and the crime of this case is determined by the lower court.