The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable, given that the Defendant did not immediately surrenders to the police immediately after the crime, but did not voluntarily surrenders to the police when the police continued to commit the crime, taking into account the circumstances that led to the number of self-denunciation, the lower court did not voluntarily surrenders to the police, and considering the contents of the instant crime and the circumstances that did not recover from damage, the lower court’s punishment (a prison term of three years of imprisonment, a prison term of four years of probation, and a community service order of 200 hours)

2. Even if the facts constituting the crime and the offender were discovered after whom they were identified by the investigation agency, if they voluntarily report the facts constituting the crime to the investigation agency before the criminal is arrested (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 68Do754, Jul. 30, 1968). In light of all of the sentencing factors as seen below, it is difficult to view the lower court’s judgment that reduced self-denunciation in the determination of the punishment for the crime of this case is unreasonable.

The lower court determined the recommended range within the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission, taking into account the following: (a) the minor injury was inflicted on the crime of robbery in this case; (b) the consequence of injury was caused; (c) the basic crime was committed but the Defendant committed an attempted crime; (d) the Defendant voluntarily surrenders to the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant determined the recommended range in the special mitigation area by taking into account the factors of mitigation of the special sentencing, and (e) the Defendant reflects his mistake after committing the crime;

In light of the above circumstances cited by the court below and the various sentencing conditions as indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, the background and contents of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment can be sufficiently recognized as belonging to the scope of appropriate punishment according to its responsibility, and thus, it is not recognized as unjust.

Therefore, prosecutors.