1. According to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, when a person who commits an accusation under Article 156 of the Criminal Act makes a confession or surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted. As such, confession prior to the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a reason for the necessary mitigation or exemption of punishment.

In addition, since there is no legal limitation as to the procedure of confession, it is included in the concept of confession as a defendant or suspect of an accusation case by the court or an investigative agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do831, Apr. 9, 2004; 2012Do2783, Jun. 14, 2012). 2. According to the records, the defendant made a statement to the effect that he denies all of the facts charged in the instant case at the court of first instance, but the defendant made a statement to the effect that he/she recognized all facts charged in the statement of grounds of appeal while filing an appeal against the first instance court that found him/her guilty, and therefore, it can be known that he/she made a confession by making a statement on the date of the first instance trial and making a statement to recognize all the facts charged again. Thus, the defendant must be subject to the requisite mitigation or exemption of punishment pursuant to Articles 157 and 15

Nevertheless, the lower court did not take such measures.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to confessions which are necessary grounds for reduction or exemption of punishment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench