A. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that, although the Defendant submitted a self-denunciation statement through his defense counsel and voluntarily surrenders to the Republic of Korea from a foreign country, the application of the statute of the lower judgment was not indicated

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “self-denunciation” under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act, which determines 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. This includes the case where he/she voluntarily attended the investigation agency after the occurrence of the crime

However, the defendant voluntarily surrendered.

Even if the court voluntarily surrenders the self-denunciation, it is merely a mere fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment, and the court below did not reduce the self-denunciation.

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

of this case, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do12041 Decided December 22, 2011 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 201). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, even if the Defendant submitted a self-denunciation certificate to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office through his/her defense counsel on June 7, 2016 and voluntarily returned to the investigation agency and recognized the Defendant as a criminal act, the court may reduce the sentence against the voluntarily surrendered Defendant, and

It cannot be said that there is an error of misapprehending the legal principles in the judgment of the court below on the ground that the provision was not explicitly stated.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is not accepted.

B. The defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing recognizes all the crimes and reflects them, the defendant paid a total of KRW 24 million to some victims during the investigation process, and deposited a total of KRW 10 million for some victims, and the defendant is a crime of fraud.