The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant, who voluntarily surrenders and mitigated, made a telephone call to an investigative agency and made an appearance in the investigative agency, the mitigation of self-denunciation under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act ought to be made.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The phrase “self-denunciation” under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of self-denunciation is established when an offender voluntarily reports his/her criminal facts to an investigation agency and voluntarily expresses his/her intent to prosecute the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1695, Jul. 9, 199). “Self-denunciation’s criminal facts constituting the subject matter of a report” refers to an objective fact that meets the requirements for establishment of a crime. As such, the self-denunciation becomes established by voluntarily reporting such objective facts to an investigation agency and expressing his/her intent to be in charge of the disposition thereof. Thus, even if a report is made to an investigation agency voluntarily, if the content of the report is a fact that does not meet the requirements for establishment of a crime, such report is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do2443, Sept. 21, 199); and, in response to questions or investigations conducted by an investigation agency, making a statement of criminal facts in response to an official questioning or investigation is a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do.

Even if self-denunciation, the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment against the self-denunciation.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011). According to the record, the Defendant issued a warrant of arrest on May 1, 2012, 61 of the investigation record by failing to appear even after having received a request from an investigative agency for attendance on May 1, 2012. After having issued a warrant of arrest on September 21, 201, the Defendant revealed the veterinarian by telephone to the investigative agency on September 21, 201, and was arrested by the warrant of arrest; the victim of the interrogation during the police on the