A. Nos. 4, 5, and 6 in the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts are not stolen by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant as to this part is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, and return of victims) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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 at an investigative agency or court of original instance differs from the statement at an appellate court. In determining the credibility of a confession, it shall be determined whether the contents of the confession’s statement are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the circumstance leading up to the confession, and what does not conflict with or conflict with the confession among other evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). Meanwhile, if the confession of the defendant does not have any reason prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and if there is no situation where there is no reasonable doubt among the motive and process of making the confession, it shall be determined that the confession entails evidence supporting the evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2873, Jun. 12, 1992).

Considering the following facts comprehensively admitted by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is difficult to find out circumstances that suspect the credibility of the confession in the court below, and the contents of the statement are objective.