2. The Defendant’s defense counsel asserts that the Defendant voluntarily appeared at the police station and voluntarily surrenders to the police, and thus, it is no longer necessary to look at the matters related to other crimes that have already been punished. The phrase “self-denunciation” refers to the Defendant’s expression of intent to voluntarily report the crime to the government agency with the responsibility to investigate, and to seek the disposition. As such, it is only confession that the Defendant voluntarily expresses the crime in response to questions or investigations by the investigative agency, and it does not constitute a self-denunciation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011). The Defendant arrested the Defendant on the arrest warrant on August 15, 2013. While the Defendant voluntarily appeared at the investigative agency on the issue of theft on October 5, 2012 of the instant criminal facts, it is not necessary to voluntarily respond to the changes of the investigation agency and thus, it cannot be accepted as the witness’s assertion to voluntarily report and make a confession to the investigation agency.

Although there are favorable circumstances such as the defendant's recognition of all of his criminal acts and reflections, the defendant has a lot of records of punishment for larceny, such as the first head of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, and the crime of this case was in a state where the fine imposed by larceny, etc. was unpaid, and the defendant was under investigation by an investigative agency about the theft of October 5, 2012 among the criminal facts of this case.