A. Since the Defendant surrenders himself to the lower court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby failing to reduce the number of self-denunciation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “self-denunciation” as referred to in Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act, which determines the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, means that the criminal voluntarily reports his/her criminal act to the competent authority responsible for the investigation and seeks the disposition thereof. As such, it is only a confession to state the criminal facts in response to the official questioning or investigation conducted by the investigative authority, not a confession. Furthermore, the self-denunciation is constituted when the criminal expresses his/her intent

In addition, even if the defendant voluntarily surrenders himself, the court was merely able to voluntarily reduce the punishment, and the court below did not reduce the punishment.

or failure to render a judgment on the allegation to reduce self-denunciation;

Therefore, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Do12041 Decided December 22, 2011). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the lower court’s failure to reduce self-denunciation was illegal is without merit.

B. Although there are some favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s attitude to a certain degree to judge the allegation of unfair sentencing, and the deposit of KRW 2 million for the victim, if examining various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy, in light of the fact that the Defendant again committed the crime of this case, which is a specific violent crime, during the period of repeated crime, did not agree with the victim.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.