not deemed to have voluntarily surrendered;

Although the Defendant had already been subjected to a designated number of times from the authority due to the harm of the Defendant, and was under his/her control at his/her office, the investigative authority obtained information that the Defendant was being under his/her command at his/her office, and was immediately dismissed, the Defendant was entering the back of his/her office, and it is not difficult to recognize the fact that the Defendant was under his/her command at the police station on the following day without being able to say that he/she was under his/her command, and therefore, it is not difficult to recognize the fact that the Defendant was under his/her command at the police station. Accordingly, the Defendant’s entry in the investigator book does not constitute a self-denunciation as defined in Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act, even if it is obvious that the investigation office already discovered the instant case against

Article 52 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4287Ma34 delivered on April 6, 1954 (Supreme Court Decision 5153 delivered on November 6, 195, Supreme Court Decision 52(1)1256 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (64 High Court Decision 2566)

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

The sixty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor in this case is as follows: first, the sentencing of the court below is too unfilled and unfair in light of the defendant's criminal act; second, even after examining the case records in detail, the application of Article 52 of the Criminal Act to the defendant is an unlawful act that affects the conclusion of the judgment because there is error in the application of law, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant in this case is that the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the attorney non-party 1 by the defendant's defense counsel is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the court below first examined the defendant's grounds for appeal, i.e., wrong fact-finding, which affected the judgment, and it is not difficult to acknowledge the defendant's criminal facts based on various evidences lawfully examined by the court below. Thus, it is not reasonable to accept the facts that the court below erred in its reasoning for appeal No. 2. The court below decided that the defendant surrendered to the Sungnam Police Station, an investigative agency after the crime of this case, and applied Article 52 of the Criminal Act. However, it is hard to find that the defendant had no further understanding of the fact that the defendant had already been stated in the investigation report by ○○ Police Station No. 2 (record No. 31) and the suspect interrogation report by 2 on the defendant and the prosecutor's suspect interrogation report by 30 times on the defendant, which had already been written in the second place after the crime of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below should be reversed without any need to decide on the remaining grounds for appeal. Thus, this Court decides to reverse the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and further decides as follows through pleading.

The criminal facts and evidence against the defendant recognized by the court below are the same as that decided by the court below, and therefore, they will be cited as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In light of the law, since the so-called "public health unit defendant's judgment" falls under Article 337 of the Criminal Act, the court below's decision shall be subject to punishment within the scope of the period of punishment imposed on the repeated offender according to Article 35 of the same Act after selecting the prescribed limited imprisonment, and applying Article 35 of the same Act in accordance with Article 42 of the same Act after applying Article 35 of the same Act, or there is no property damage from the crime of this case, but there is no reason to consider in light of the circumstances of the crime. Thus, the defendant shall be punished within the scope of the period of punishment reduced by applying Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and the sixty-five days from the period of detention before

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Judge)