The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

500,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

3.2

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in paragraph 1 of the judgment below, failed to receive a philopon in fact, even though 50,000 won of philopon was remitted to the said seller, by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, by deceiving the philopon seller.

In addition, the Defendant did not have any fact that he administered phiphones at each time listed in paragraph (2) of the judgment below.

Although the defendant led to the confession of each of the above crimes in the second interrogation of suspect in the prosecution, this means that the defendant stated that the defendant " would make a confession if he/she had a positive reaction in the prosecution," but the investigative agency had a psychological pressure on the ground that he/she actually had a positive reaction, so there is no voluntariness.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the admissibility of evidence of the above interrogation protocol and found the whole charged facts of this case guilty is erroneous in mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In a case where the defendant argues that the defendant's statement and the defendant's statement on the date of trial indicated in the suspect interrogation protocol are false confession, the court should determine whether the above statement was made arbitrarily by free conviction in consideration of all the circumstances, including the defendant's educational background, career, occupation, social status, intelligence, contents of the statement, the protocol of interrogation of suspect interrogation, etc. according to the specific case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do705, May 30, 2003). Also, if certain evidence is discovered, the commitment that the defendant would make a confession was made by coercion or deceptive scheme by the prosecutor.

If it is not recognized that it was a condition for exchange with interest, such as the prosecution of a non-prosecution or a minor crime, the confession as above.