The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

One-time injection containing seized philophones.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In spite of the number of self-denunciations, the lower court did not recognize the number of self-denunciations, even though the Defendant asked the employees of the Moel to leave the police.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion on self-denunciation 1) The number of self-denunciation can be acknowledged only where the defendant voluntarily reported the crime to the government agency responsible for the investigation and voluntarily expresses his/her intent to seek such disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011, etc.).

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant voluntarily surrendered, in full view of the following: (a) although the Defendant was found to have left the police station at the time; (b) the background leading up to the police station; (c) the Defendant’s act and attitude toward the police station until the police station was arrested; and (d) the Defendant refused the interrogation and prosecution after the arrest.

It is difficult to see it.

In light of the fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment for self-denunciation, and it cannot be deemed illegal that the court below did not reduce the number of self-denunciation or did not decide on the assertion of self-denunciation (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011). Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011; however, as seen below, this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1201, Dec. 22, 201).