Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the above police investigation report was insufficient to be used as evidence to reinforce the confession of the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On March 16, 2015, at around 06:16, the Defendant: (a) destroyed and damaged the locked doors of the “D” shop in Busan-gun C, Busan-gun C, and the first floor of “D” by putting them into the cosmetic store after putting them into the cosmetic store; and (b) stolen the 640,000 won of cash owned by the victim E, the main owner of the cosmetic store in the location Kabropox.

B. Determination 1) The court below held that evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case includes a self-written statement prepared by the defendant by the investigative agency, F, G’s statement at the court of the court below, each investigation report prepared by the police officer F, and each CCTV image f. Among the written statements prepared by the investigative agency, the part that the defendant made a statement to the effect that the defendant led to the confession of the crime in this case among the police officers’ legal statements, and each investigation report written by the statement to this effect cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt unless there is any evidence to reinforce the confession of the defendant, since all of the written statements prepared by the investigative agency and the police officers’ statement made by the defendant to the effect that the defendant led to the confession of the crime in this case, and since there is no evidence to reinforce the confession of the defendant, the confession of the defendant cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt. Thus, since there is an investigation report which included a CCTV image flaf as evidence to reinforce the