Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant

C.

A. Defendant A (unfair punishment)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C, C, and D are drivers of towing vehicles belonging to Granchi, and they merely towed vehicles according to the orders of Defendant B, a regular manager, according to the lower court’s order, and did not recognize the theft of the target vehicles. Therefore, the lower court which convicted the above Defendants of the facts charged, even though there was no intention to larceny, did not err by misapprehending the facts and making a judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the mistake of facts in Defendant C and D 1) It cannot be said that the credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession made by the defendant in the investigation agency of the relevant legal principles differs from the legal statement. In determining the credibility of the confession, the determination of the credibility of the confession shall be made by taking into account the following facts and circumstances: (a) whether the contents of the confession statement itself are objectively rational; (b) what is the motive or reason for the confession; and (c) what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession; and (d) whether there is a situation where there is a reasonable doubt about the motive or process of the confession as prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3924, Sept. 26, 2003). In full view of the facts and circumstances duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment below is justified in finding the Defendants guilty of the facts charged as to the above vehicle.