The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The fact that the defendant's judgment on the grounds for appeal of this case is contrary to the recognition of the crime of this case, and that there is no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, etc. can be considered in favor of the defendant.

However, perjury requires punishment corresponding to a crime that obstructs the proper exercise of judgment authority, which is the judicial action of the State, and the discovery of substantial truth, and the contents of testimony of a defendant could affect the result of a trial. The crime of this case is in the concurrent crime relationship between the crime of which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of this case under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it is necessary to determine punishment in consideration of equity with the case where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In light of various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family relation, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the phrase “1. In the case of detention in the workhouse” column is apparent that it is a clerical error in Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act before being amended by Act No. 12575 of May 14, 2014. As such, the phrase “Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the former Criminal Act is a clerical error in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.

.