(a) Whether the criminal facts are denied or whether the number of persons who do not repent of the crimes is the reason for mitigation of punishment;

(b) Validity where only a part of several criminal facts is self-denunciation;

A. The self-denunciation stipulated in Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act refers to a person who voluntarily reports the criminal facts to an investigative agency and seeks the prosecution thereof, and the main reason why the criminal commits the crime as a mitigation reason is that the crime is divided. Thus, a self-denunciation who does not deny the criminal facts or have committed the crime cannot be said to be a true self-denunciation who is a legal mitigation reason even if the person voluntarily surrenders himself/herself.

(b) Where a self-denunciation is made only for a part of several criminal facts, the number of persons shall be effective only for such part of the criminal facts;

Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983 (Gong1983,695) 93Do1054 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2067) b. 69Do779 delivered on July 22, 1969 (Gong2100)

Defendant and one other

Prosecutor

Bank General Law Firm, Attorneys Park Nam-sik et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 94No984 delivered on June 15, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of committing the crime that the defendant sustained bodily injury by raped the victim in the passenger car set up in the Southern-ro, Seoul Southern-ro, and rendered legal mitigation by applying Articles 52(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act to the investigation agency on the ground that the defendant surrenders himself to the investigation agency.

However, since the self-denunciation stipulated in Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Code means that the criminal voluntarily reports the criminal facts to an investigation agency and the reason why the criminal commits the crime and the reason why the sentence is mitigated is that the criminal is divided, the self-denunciation who does not deny the criminal facts or has not divided the crime cannot be regarded as a true self-denunciation which is a legal reason for the reduction of punishment even if he/she surrenders himself/herself (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1054 delivered on June 11, 1993), and if he/she surrenders only to some of several criminal facts, the number of self-denunciations are effective only for the part of the criminal facts (see Supreme Court Decision 69Do779 delivered on July 22, 196).

However, according to the statement and the statement of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared for the first time on the day when the defendant voluntarily attended the police, although the defendant was under investigation of the crime of this case, he was allowed to use part of the piece of "Rape", but the overall purport of his statement was sexual intercourse with the victim on the day of the crime, the crime of this case is not attributable to the south cycle, which is the place where the crime of this case was committed, but at least 06:0 on the same day and the time was not forced to do so. (See Investigation 11, 13, 16-19,), it can be seen that the defendant made a statement entirely different from the above crime of this case (see Investigation 11, 13, 16-19,), and it is acknowledged that the defendant denied the crime of this case consistently until the police, the prosecution, and the court of first instance and the court of appeal. Thus, even if the defendant voluntarily attended the investigation agency, as long as the defendant denies the crime of this case, it cannot be viewed as a ground for mitigation of punishment under the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)