The Defendant, at the lower court, falls under 36, 43, 44, and 53 through 60 (the list of crimes in which the original trial is found guilty) in the list of crimes prior to the amendment of indictment at the lower court. As to the remaining crimes except for 11 crimes, such as the withdrawal of the sequence 9 from among the list of crimes in the indictments due to the amendment of indictments at the lower court, and the reduction of the sequence 9 thereafter, the number of crimes in the nine indictments shall be determined based on the facts charged prior to the amendment of indictments. As such, confession statements made at an investigative agency constitutes a false confession by the police officer’s intimidation and revolving, and thus, the confession statements made at the lower court and the lower court were maintained in the lower court, and all of the confession statements made by the Defendant are inadmissible, and if the Defendant excluded the confession statements made by the above Defendant without admissibility, there is insufficient evidence to prove all the remaining crimes except for the above crimes.

The imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

In full view of all the contents of the confession statement submitted by the police and the prosecutor, the materials submitted by the prosecutor, and the contents of the Defendant’s statement in the original trial and the trial in a free atmosphere, the Defendant’s confession statement made by the investigative agency can be acknowledged as having been made in the state of intimidation from the investigative police officers or without being taken place, and further, there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the Defendant’s confession statement.

Therefore, this case takes into account the confession statement made by the defendant in the investigative agency and the original trial and supporting evidence.