B. Whether it is sufficient to prove the whole criminal facts that the protocol of seizure of OEM has been entered in the protocol of seizure without permission for OEM

B. The statement in the seizure protocol prepared by the judicial police officer that the police officer, who was dispatched to the place after receiving a report from the victim who stolen Oralone, was able to dived work for the defendant while serving for the defendant while being arrested him immediately, and seized Oral one therefrom, is not directly reinforced evidence for the fact that the defendant did not have a driver's license, but it constitutes reinforced evidence for the confession part of the fact that he driven Oral one's driving without the driver's license. Accordingly, it is sufficient to prove the whole criminal facts that the defendant driven without the driver's license.

According to the records of this case, among the facts charged in this case, the court of first instance affirmed the first instance judgment by dismissing the appeal on the ground that there is no evidence to reinforce the confession of the defendant as to the above facts charged, and the court below also affirmed the first instance judgment by dismissing the appeal on the ground that there is no evidence to reinforce the confession of the defendant as to the facts charged in this case, and there is no evidence to reinforce the above confession.

However, according to the record of the search and seizure of the judicial police assistant prepared by the first instance court, it can be seen that the police officer dispatched to the above place after receiving a report from the victim who stolen the above Oralba to the front passage of the Yong-Nam, was locked and the defendant was faced with the above Oralba, and the defendant was arrested immediately, and the seizure of the above Oralba was made.

Reinforcement evidence for confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to ensure that the facts of confession are not processed, but true, and it does not require all of the facts constituting an offense or all of the important parts thereof as a whole. Therefore, although it is not directly supporting evidence for the fact that the defendant has no driver's license, it constitutes corroborative evidence for the confession part of the fact that he/she has driven on the ground that it constitutes a confession part of the fact that he/she has driven on the ground that it is not directly supporting evidence for the fact that he/she has driven on the ground without driver's license, it is sufficient

Nevertheless, maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the confession by the defendant was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the evidence of reinforcement concerning the confession, and such errors have affected the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the High Military Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)