The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable when taking into account the various circumstances against the accused (in particular, taking into account the number of self-denunciations), and the first deliberation punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment).

2. In the instant case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be specifically considered in the judgment below, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (b) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is difficult to deem that the first deliberation sentence is too excessive to exceed the scope of the sentencing discretion, and thus unfair.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s argument regarding the above sentencing does not accept (the Defendant’s phone call to the Seocho Police Station on October 17, 2016 and made a call to find a criminal charge, and then appeared on October 18, 2016 at the Seocho Police Station J. 4 Team on October 18, 2016, and thus, the Defendant’s “self-denunciation” under the rule of law should be considered in the sentencing. Thus, the Defendant asserts to the effect that this should be considered in the sentencing.

However, “self-denunciation” under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act means that a criminal voluntarily reports his/her criminal act to a government agency responsible for the investigation and voluntarily seeks such disposition, and thus, it is only a confession that makes a statement of criminal facts in response to an official questioning or investigation conducted by an investigative agency and does not constitute a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011). According to the records, the fact that the criminal defendant was issued a warrant of arrest against the defendant by an investigative agency is prior to hearing on the fact that the defendant was issued a warrant of arrest against the defendant by the investigative agency, and even if he/she was present at the police station at the Seocho-gu Police Station on October 18, 2016, it is recognized that the fact that the defendant was denied the examination by the police that

No person may see significantly.

We cannot accept this part of the Defendant’s assertion

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.