A. There was a fact that the Defendant had been sealed of the victim’s door door at the time and place of the criminal facts recorded, but there was no intention to larceny.

The evidence proving that the defendant had intention to larceny at the time is only the confession statement made by the defendant in the investigative agency or the court of original instance.

Even if the confession statement made in an investigative agency is reliable due to lack of voluntariness, there is no supporting evidence to support it even if it is reliable in the confession statement made in court of original instance.

Therefore, it is not possible to establish a crime of attempted larceny against the defendant at night.

Nevertheless, since the court below convicted the defendant of the charges of attempted larceny at night, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the admissibility or credibility of a confession cannot be deemed to be doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the investigation agency of the defendant or in the court of first instance differs from the testimony in the court of appeal or in the court of appeal. In determining the credibility of a confession, the determination of the credibility of the 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, what is the motive or reason; (c) the circumstances leading up to the confession, and (d) whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, as stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or whether there is a situation to have reasonable doubts in the motive or process

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008). Reinforcement of confessions can be recognized as a whole or an essential part of the crime.