A. The Defendant did not commit a crime indicated in the facts charged in the instant case by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

However, in the first instance court, the Defendant, who has no legal knowledge, solicited confessions through a short interview with a public defender, and led to confessions in all the facts charged of this case.

Therefore, the confession of the defendant in the court below does not have any probative value or credibility.

In addition, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the statement of the victim and witness without credibility alone does not constitute evidence of guilt and does not constitute supporting evidence of confession, but all the facts charged of this case are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the probative value or credibility of a confession, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unless otherwise, the sentence imposed by the court below (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it cannot be said that the probative value or credibility of a confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of first instance differs from the legal statement in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of a confession, the determination of the credibility of a confession should be made in consideration of the following: (a) the contents of the confession’s statement per se are objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason for the confession; and (d) the circumstance leading up to the confession does not conflict with or conflict with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession; and (e) whether there is a situation in which the confession in the court of first instance would give rational doubts

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do159 delivered on March 13, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 98Do2605 delivered on January 15, 199, Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091 Delivered on September 28, 2001, etc.). According to the records, the defendant raises objection at an investigative agency.