A. misunderstanding of facts: The defendant, under the police's investigation of a person who is not guilty and a person who is not guilty of the facts charged, made a false confession before the court of original instance because it is difficult to refer to the truth and then made a false confession to the court of original instance; and the judgment below which found him guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground of the defendant's

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower judgment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant made a confession of all the facts charged in the instant case after being investigated with the person who was not the subject of the judgment and the person who was the subject of the offense in the instant case at an investigative agency, and thereafter all the facts charged in the lower court’s judgment were led to the reversal of the facts charged in the

We examine the Voluntaryness and credibility of confession made by the defendant in the original court.

In a case where the defendant asserts the voluntariness of the defendant's statement entered in the suspect examination protocol and the defendant's statement made on the trial date and it is a false confession, the court should determine whether the above statement was made at will by free conviction in consideration of various circumstances, such as the defendant's educational background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence, content of the statement, and the protocol of interrogation of suspect interrogation protocol, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do705, May 30, 2003). In addition, in determining the credibility of confession, the court should decide whether the contents of the confession are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the circumstance leading to the confession, and what does not conflict with or conflict with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do6497, Jan. 27, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Health Service, the lower court, and the lower court adopted the instant case.