A. Whether the assertion that a self-denunciation was made constitutes a statement of fact that constitutes a ground for aggravated reduction or exemption of punishment under Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act (negative)

(b) Whether the number of self-employed persons is not a reason for reduction or exemption under Article 52 of the Criminal Act and is appropriate for discretionary mitigation under Article 53 (affirmative)

A. The facts constituting the grounds for an aggravated reduction or exemption of statutory punishment under Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act refer to the facts constituting the grounds for an aggravated reduction or exemption of statutory punishment, which do not constitute an assertion of self-denunciation under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act, which constitutes the grounds for a court’s voluntary reduction or exemption.

B. The reduction or exemption of the self-denunciation under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act is a discretionary matter belonging to the court's discretion, and thus, the court does not regard it as a reason for mitigation under the above Act, but in conformity with other circumstances, it cannot be deemed unlawful even if mitigation under Article 53 of the Criminal Act is made on the ground of discretionary reduction.

A. Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 65Do445 delivered on July 20, 1965, 71Do1486 delivered on September 28, 197, Supreme Court Decision 84Do1897 delivered on November 13, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Ha Jong-sung

Daegu District Court Decision 84No1051 delivered on November 9, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

In light of the records, we affirm the measures that recognized the habitual nature of assault against the defendant and the measures that judged that the defendant was not in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime of this case and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit

In addition, the facts that are the grounds for statutory aggravated reduction or exemption of punishment under Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act refer to the facts that form the grounds for statutory compulsory aggravated reduction or exemption of punishment, and it is not reasonable to discuss that the argument about voluntary reduction or exemption of punishment under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which constitutes the grounds for discretionary reduction or exemption of punishment, does not correspond to this point (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 65Do445, Jul. 20, 1965; 71Do1486, Sept. 28, 197; 200Do323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which constitutes a violation of Article 3

In addition, since the self-denunciation reduction and exemption under Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Act belongs to the discretion of the court, it cannot be deemed illegal even if mitigation under Article 53 of the Criminal Act is made based on discretionary deliberation by the court without regard to it as a reason for mitigation under the above Article 52 (1) as a reason for discretionary mitigation under Article 53 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1897, Nov. 13, 1984). Since the court below reduced discretionary mitigation by taking account of the fact that the defendant voluntarily surrenders and other circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the court neglected the judgment on the fact of self-denunciation, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)