The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court rendered against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below acknowledged the Defendant to commit a crime, but this case is a case where the Defendant administered phiphonephones twice, and there is a great need for the Defendant to strictly punish narcotics crimes in consideration of the social malicious behavior. The Defendant has the same criminal record, this case is a crime during the repeated crime period, there is a circumstance suspected of an escape without good faith in the investigation, and all the sentencing conditions of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive for the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the contents of the investigation before the judgment of the court below are considered, and thus, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that punishment should be mitigated as he surrenders himself.

However, “self-denunciation” as referred to in Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act means that an offender voluntarily reports his/her criminal act to a government agency responsible for the investigation and voluntarily seeks such disposition. As such, it is only confessions and does not correspond to the number of self-denunciations, and even if the Defendant voluntarily surrenders himself/herself, it is merely that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment for the self-denunciations even if he/she voluntarily surrenders himself/herself, and it cannot be said that the court below erred by failing to reduce the number of self-denunciations or failing to render a judgment on the allegation of self-denunciations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011). In this case, the Defendant is arrested under a warrant of arrest and thus cannot be deemed to constitute a self-denunciation, and even if he/she falls under a self-denunciation, the above assertion by the Defendant merely constitutes a discretionary reduction reason.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.