A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant, upon receiving the police investigation from the investigator, was accused by the investigator, or made a false confession without voluntariness due to the investigator’s conference, and the state of voluntariness led to the time of the prosecutor’s investigation. Therefore, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the instant crime on the grounds of the false confession made by the prosecutor. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant crime on the grounds of the false confession made by the prosecutor.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the argument that the confession made by the defendant at the prosecution is false confession 1) In a case where the defendant contests the defendant's statement or the defendant's testimony on the trial date entered in the suspect examination protocol and that it is false confession, the court shall judge whether the above statement was made at will with free conviction by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the defendant's educational background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence, contents of the statement, and the protocol of the suspect examination protocol in the case of the suspect examination protocol, and whether the contents of the confession have objective rationality or not, the motive or reason of the confession and the circumstances leading to the confession should be considered, and the credibility of the confession should be determined in light of the above legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2084, Nov. 25, 1997; 92Do2972, Feb. 23, 1993).

The following circumstances recognized by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant at the prosecution.