Whether the delivery of a veterinarian to his/her friendship constitutes a self-denunciation (negative)

Even if a veterinarian delivers a veterinarian by telephone to his/her relative before he/she is arrested by the police officer, it cannot be viewed as a self-defense.

Article 52 (1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Jae-han

Seoul High Court Decision 85No20 delivered on April 17, 1985

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the first trial of the defendant maintained by the court below constituted Article 337 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, which is a legal provision concerning the co-principal of the crime of robbery and injury, and that the defendant voluntarily surrendered after the crime of this case, through Non-Indicted misunderstanding in authority after the crime of this case, and that the defendant voluntarily surrenders himself after the crime of this case, pursuant to Articles 52(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, the court below reduced the amount of punishment by discretionary mitigation pursuant to Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, and then determined the punishment within the scope of the term of punishment.

However, according to the record as to whether the defendant voluntarily surrendered or not, according to the discovery report of the suspect who was bound to the investigation records, only the non-indicted 1, who is the accomplice after the crime of this case, was arrested by the investigation agency, and the defendant was arrested by the criminal defendant belonging to the Seoul Northern Police Station, who was living in the present dwelling place after the defendant escaped. However, according to the testimony at the court of first instance and the court of first instance, the defendant sent the phone call to the above senior senior police officer, who was an instructor of the police station, who was accompanying the police before the arrest of the police, but it cannot be viewed as a self-feasible number. Further, the defendant did not return the above senior senior police officer to the police and did not appear at that place in order to voluntarily surrenders the defendant, and the record cannot be seen as having been prepared, even if the defendant voluntarily surrenders.

The court below recognized that the defendant voluntarily surrendered and reduced the self-denunciation is erroneous in recognizing the fact of self-denunciation without evidence, and this affected the conclusion of the judgment, which points this out is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)