A. In fact-finding the Defendant: (a) entered the Republic of South Africa upon the request of Africa B (B; hereinafter “B”) to transport cleaning tools; (b) entered the Republic of South Africa; and (c) delivered the bags for travel (hereinafter “the instant bags”) to the Republic of Korea; and (d) did not know the fact that the instant bags were included in the said bags.

The Defendant was aware that an illegal article may be included in the above bank prior to entry. However, the Defendant was not willing to commit the crime of importing narcotics from the beginning.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts cannot be concluded that the probative value or credibility of a confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the first instance court differs from the statement in the appellate court. Determination of the credibility of a confession is based on the following: (a) the content of the confession’s statement itself objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason behind the confession; and (d) the circumstance leading up to the confession in the circumstantial evidence other than the confession does not conflict with or conflict with the confession; and (e) whether there was a situation in which the Defendant would have any reasonable doubt as to the motive or process of the confession prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or the motive or process of the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001; 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008).