A. Although the Defendant, as to the 2017 Highest 1845 case, was forced by an investigator, there was a confession, the Defendant did not commit the crime of intrusion upon the residence and theft of the said case.

(b) Sentencing (the sentence of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years);

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can sufficiently acknowledge the fact of intrusion into the residence and larceny in the 2017 Highest 1845 case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Although the Defendant denied this part of the crime in the police, the Defendant stated in detail the details of the theft, the details of the stolen property, the developments leading up to the theft, the circumstances leading up to the theft, and the circumstances leading up to the disposal of the stolen property, etc., by recognizing all the crimes by the prosecution. The aforementioned statement appears to be impossible to make a statement without having experienced himself/herself.

There is no material to see that the above statement by the defendant is forced by an investigator.

The defendant has committed a crime by getting on and off N vehicles. The defendant himself has consistently recognized the fact that the above vehicle has been used at the place of crime, and the investigation officer, as a result of tracking the vehicle through CCTV in the location near the place of crime, became a suspect.

The contents of this part of the crime are the same as other crimes recognized by the defendant.

In the court of the court below, the defendant was tried with the assistance of the counsel and recognized this part of the facts charged, and the defendant was denied in the trial.

However, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of a confession made by the defendant in the court below.

There is no evidence to see, and there is no other circumstance to suspect that the confession constitutes a false confession.

The evidence presented by the defendant in the trial alone leads to the above judgment.