The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (a crime of No. 1 as stated in the lower judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, and a crime of No. 2 as stated in the lower judgment: Imprisonment with labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

The defendant asserts that most of the facts constituting the crime No. 1 of the decision of the court below was identified by the self-denunciation of the defendant, and that this is favorable to the defendant.

However, “self-denunciation” means that a criminal voluntarily reports his/her criminal act to a government agency responsible for the investigation and seeks measures; thus, it is only a confession that makes a statement of criminal facts in response to an official questioning or investigation by an investigative agency, but it is only a confession that the court may voluntarily reduce the punishment for a self-denunciation even if the defendant voluntarily surrenders (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011). Of the judgment of the court below, the defendant states other criminal acts committed by a police officer in response to an urgent arrest of the police in the course of the investigation, and then the criminal facts committed by a police officer during the course of the investigation. This is not only difficult to deem that the defendant voluntarily made a statement on his/her criminal facts in response to an investigation by an investigative agency on his/her duty, rather than having reported and sought a disposition.