2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Even when considering the circumstances in which the Defendants were able to file an appeal as the grounds for appeal, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing, and further, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after

In addition, Defendant A asserted that the punishment should be mitigated because he/she reflects the mistake and voluntarily surrenders himself/herself, but even if the Defendant voluntarily surrenders himself/herself, it is merely the fact that the court can arbitrarily reduce the punishment for the self-denunciation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2018, Jun. 11, 2004). In particular, Defendant A attempted not only to voluntarily surrenders after the police arrested B, who is an employee of the police establishment, but also to destroy evidence by eliminating the recent list of telephone phones and photographs used for the crime committed against Defendant A while transmitting the arrested cell phone numbers to the arrested B.

In light of this, even if Defendant A voluntarily surrenders, this is merely a reason for voluntary reduction of punishment.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendants’ assertion that the sentencing of the lower court is unfair.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.