The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the judgment of the court below did not voluntarily reduce the punishment on the ground that the defendant attempted to reduce the punishment even though the defendant accepted a person, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the fact that the defendant voluntarily reported the crime to the investigative agency after the crime of this case and expressed his/her intent to seek the disposition and accepted it is recognized.

However, the judgment of the court below, on the grounds of sentencing, stated that “the defendant attempted to cut down and stop the check, but it was already prevented or reduced the victims’ damage or there was no arrest of the criminals after the crime was committed.” However, the phrase “the defendant attempted to cut down” was indicated by emphasizing that the damage was inflicted upon the defendant even though the defendant was dead, and the fraud was not arrested. However, the above phrase alone, it appears that the court below attempted to cut down the number of the defendants, but did not reach the self-denunciation.

It is difficult to conclude a judgment.

Even if the court below did not consider the number of self-denunciation even though the defendant had received self-denunciation, it is merely a mere fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the number of self-denunciation, and it cannot be deemed unlawful because the court below did not reduce the number of self-denunciation or did not render a judgment on the allegation of self-denunciation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 201, etc.). Accordingly, there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Regarding the unfair argument of sentencing