The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was a person committing the instant crime in an investigative agency.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not reduce the amount of punishment on the ground of the number of persons under the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Since mitigation based on the number of persons under Article 52 of the Criminal Act, which judged the misapprehension of the legal doctrine’s assertion, is discretionary mitigation, the lower court may decide not to reduce the punishment at its discretion.

In light of the specific contents of the instant crime and damage therefrom, the method of escape of the Defendant, and the circumstances leading up to the self-denunciation recognized by the duly admitted evidence, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s failure to reduce the sentence on the ground of self-determination was illegal or unfair.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

In light of the facts alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair, even if all of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant were to be considered.

We do not accept the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.