(b) Examples that the confession cannot be the corroborative evidence; and

B. The Nonindicted Party’s statement that the Defendant was stolen of one of the enclosed cargo vehicles set up in front of the Sung-dong Self-Governing House at Sungnam-si was led to the confession of the said Defendant, not to the purport that the confession of the said Defendant was used as the means and method of committing the crime, but to use the said vehicle as the means and means of transportation for the impulse up to the place where the Defendant was committing the crime, and thus, it cannot be the corroborative evidence for the confession of the said Defendant.

The judgment of the court below recognizes the following facts: (a) comprehensively taking account of each statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the judgment of the court below and in the court of the trial, and the statement of statement on this part of the judicial police officer's handling of affairs, the defendant committed a theft of one finger with a hand 18,00 won in cash, which the defendant gets together with the non-indicted 1,00 won on the date and time of the judgment.

The reinforcement evidence of confession is sufficient if it is recognized that the defendant's voluntary confession is not processed, but true, and it is sufficient to prove the circumstantial evidence directly or indirectly related to the crime that is direct or confession. According to the records, the above use of the evidence is merely a theft of the same kind of article 8 A. 4126, which the defendant was placed in front of his own house at Sung-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-si, 1985, on April 30, 1985, and it is merely a theft of the article 8A 4126, which the defendant was placed in front of his own house at Sung-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, and it is time for the defendant to take the above use of the article. Thus, the statement of the above use of the evidence can be a reinforcement evidence of the confession of the thief. However, the confession that the defendant committed this case by the defendant is not the means and method of the crime, but the defendant's use of the vehicle at the time of the crime.

Thus, the confession of the defendant in this case is the only evidence against the defendant, and there is no other evidence to reinforce it, but the court below's decision which found the defendant guilty as supporting evidence shall be reversed as it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to supporting evidence and by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

It is reasonable to discuss the same purport.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)