The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. Legal doctrine 1) At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state that he/she lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the third degree of intellectual disability and shock disorder, etc.

2) Since the Defendant was able to voluntarily attend the investigative agency before the presence of the investigative agency was requested, the lower court erred by omitting it.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 3,50,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the instant case’s assertion of mental and physical weakness, even though the Defendant is a disabled person of Grade III intellectual disability, the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the method and method of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the instant crime.

Since the above argument is not visible, it is rejected.

B. The phrase “self-denunciation” under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mitigation of self-denunciation is established when a criminal voluntarily reports his/her criminal facts to an investigation agency and expresses his/her intent to seek prosecution. This includes cases where a criminal is voluntarily present at an investigation agency after the occurrence of the crime and led to the confession of the criminal facts.

However, even if the defendant voluntarily surrenders himself/herself, it is merely a mere fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment for the self-denunciation, and it cannot be deemed illegal on the ground that the defendant did not reduce the number of self-denunciation or did not make a decision on the allegation of mitigation of self-denunciation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011, etc.). According to the records of this case, the defendant was aware that he/she was guilty of his/her criminal fact and then the defendant was an investigative