All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is without prejudice.

2. On December 17, 201, the Defendants recognized the fact that they were first investigated by the police from December 17, 201 to the instant case. However, the Defendants asserted that they made a false confession by the police for the purpose of divorce by Defendant A, denying the transit from the prosecution to the trial.

According to the records, from December 2010 to June 7, 2010, the Defendants stated in the police that they had sexual intercourses between Defendant B and Defendant B’s house. In particular, Defendant B testified that “I was able to look at the son and not have sexual intercourses with the scarcity, and at the time of sexual intercourse, A was not in a situation.” The witness G of the lower court testified in the lower court that I testified from the Defendants, while investigating the Defendants around December 17, 201, that I testified to recognize the cross-competences as above.

The statement in the court of original instance G of a witness G of the court below is admissible as evidence only when it is proved that the statement made at the trial date of a person other than the defendant, especially the person who investigated the defendant as a suspect is the content of the defendant's statement, and that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state (see Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The term " particularly reliable state" in this context means that there is little room for any falsity in the contents of the statement or the preparation of the protocol, and there is a specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or artariness of the contents

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2937, Jul. 26, 2012; Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3922, Sept. 28, 2006). Therefore, the health unit, the Defendants were not subject to verbal abuse, intimidation, adviser, etc. at the time of the investigation by the police, and were recognized to have voluntarily led to confession by the police, and even according to the record, the Defendants were the police.