A. The judgment of the court below that mitigated punishment on the grounds of the defendant's self-denunciation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to self-denunciation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “self-denunciation” under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is established when an offender voluntarily reports his/her criminal facts to an investigation agency and expresses his/her intent to seek prosecution. It includes cases where an investigation agency voluntarily attended and led to confession of a criminal fact after the occurrence of

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Do1167 Decided March 20, 197, Supreme Court Decision 99Do1695 Decided July 9, 199, and 2001Do410 Decided May 15, 2001, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant was unable to commit the instant crime on January 21, 2013 and called at 112 on the same day after 12 minutes after 21:27, and on the same day after 21:27, the Defendant reported to the effect that “A person has reached. E, and the Defendant thereafter reported to the police officer called at the scene of the crime, may recognize the fact that he was arrested as a flagrant offender after making a statement that “a person has reached a victim” as reported to the police officer at the scene of the crime, and immediately arrested him at the scene of the crime.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is clear that the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigation agency and sought prosecution by notifying his position. Therefore, it is sufficient to view that the defendant voluntarily surrendered to the crime of this case.

Even if the victim reported the fact of damage immediately before the self-denunciation of the defendant, the establishment or validity of the self-denunciation does not affect.

The court below's decision is legitimate to have legal mitigation on the grounds of the number of defendants.

B. The instant crime committed on the assertion of unfair sentencing is a knife with the knife owned by the Defendant, thereby inflicting an injury on the victim.