A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, there is no reinforced evidence in addition to the confession of the Defendant with respect to the fact that the Defendant purchased the camblopon from F (hereinafter “camlopon”).

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment and one hundred thousand won of collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legal principles’ assertion, reinforcement evidence for confessions can only be sufficient if it can be recognized that the confessions of the defendant are true, not as processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized. Moreover, indirect or circumstantial evidence can be used as corroborating evidence. In addition, if confessions and corroborating evidence mutually and as a whole can be acknowledged as a whole, it is sufficient to prove the facts of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1897 Decided January 8, 2002). Among each evidence of the judgment below, it is sufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s confession is not a processed one, in accordance with the Defendant’s confession and accurate statement as to the specific circumstances leading up to the crime of purchase of the instant phiphones, and that the video and indication of the E Hospital CCTV cans data are true, not a processed one.

Since the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the confession and rebuttal of the defendant, and the important cooperation in the investigation, even though it is recognized that the defendant made a confession and reflects on the argument of unfair sentencing, if we consider the fact that a majority of different criminal records exist during the suspension period of execution due to the same kind of crime, and consider the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and all other matters concerning the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, the defendant's assertion is without merit

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.