The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) At the time of mistake of facts, Defendant A lent his name to Defendant B who is not the victim G at the request of Defendant B at the time of mistake, and delegated the operation of the instant parking lot. However, the actual operator of the instant parking lot by mistake of facts, deeming that Defendant A was the victim G and Defendant A was the victim G, and Defendant B was guilty. (2) Imprisonment (one year and six months) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the part concerning Defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A.

According to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, when a person who commits an offense under Article 156 of the Criminal Act makes a confession or accepts a punishment 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 reason for the requisite mitigation or exemption of the punishment.

In addition, there is no limitation on the procedure of confessions as to the institution dealing with the reported case because there is no legal restriction, and therefore, it is clear that the confessions against the institution dealing with the reported case or the court dealing with it was present again as a witness, and the report made before it was a false fact, as well as the confessions by the court or investigation agency as the defendant or suspect of the accused case included in the concept of confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 73Do1639, Nov. 27, 1973). According to the records, the defendant A led to confessions against the crime of this case at the trial, and it is obvious that the judgment was confirmed because the defendant A was not prosecuted, and the case against H was not finalized, so the punishment against the defendant A shall be mitigated or exempted in accordance with Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act.