Even in cases where self-denunciation is recognized, it cannot be deemed illegal even if the court below did not voluntarily reduce or exempt the punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2018, Jun. 11, 2004). Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation to the effect that the court below, which did not reduce the self-denunciation, erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of self-denunciation and the validity of the single comprehensive crime, and the validity of the self-denunciation.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error beyond the inherent limit of sentencing is ultimately unfair.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.