A. Since the facts of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below among the facts constituting the crime in this case by misapprehending the legal principles, the defendant became aware of the facts to the police investigators voluntarily, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles despite the fact that the whole of the crimes of larceny in this case, including the above facts, constitutes self-denunciation, and punishment should be mitigated or exempted.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the misunderstanding of legal principles regarding the assertion that a self-denunciation means a confession that an offender voluntarily reports his/her criminal act to a government agency liable to investigate and voluntarily seeks such disposition. Thus, it is nothing more than a confession that makes a statement of criminal facts in response to an investigation agency’s official questioning or investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3133, Oct. 14, 2004). In addition, if a person voluntarily surrenders to a part of several criminal facts only, the number of self-denunciation is effective only for the part of the criminal facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2130, Oct. 14, 1994). According to evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was arrested on August 13, 2014, which was immediately after the crime under paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, and was investigated from 14:23 to 14:23 of the same day, and he/she did not have been arrested any other goods at the time of the first investigation (2).

Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s above.