2. The Defendant, at the time of the second examination of the suspect, led to a confession by a specific statement about the date, place, method, etc. of the crime indicated in the facts charged at the time of the examination of the suspect. While the court below acknowledged all the facts charged, the Defendant stated in the court below that confession in the prosecution and the court of the original instance only made a false confession for receiving the wife, and that the fact that the confession in the court of the original instance

The admissibility or credibility of a confession in the court of first instance cannot be deemed to be doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of appeal differs from the testimony in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of a confession, considering the fact that the contents of the confession's statement per se are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and what is not contrary or contradictory to the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, the determination should be made as to whether the confession in the court of first instance has a situation where there is a reasonable doubt about the grounds stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or the motive or process

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the investigation of the instant case, which is acknowledged by the evidence of the lower court, was initiated by reporting the Defendant’s pro-friendly E’s medication to the police, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the health team and the evidence of the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001). The investigation of the instant case, namely, the investigation of the instant case, was initiated by reporting the Defendant’s medication to the police, namely, the Defendant’s pro-friendly E, from the Defendant or his neighbors, and the Defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that the Defendant was actually taking advantage of narcotics, and reported to the police who attempted to rescue the Defendant from narcotics.