The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant received money directly from the victimized company, but this is merely a legitimate receipt of the defendant's loan to Co-Defendant 1, and there was no conspiracy to commit the crime of embezzlement by Co-Defendant 1 with intent to obtain unlawful profits, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the above statement, on the ground that the defendant's statement that "the defendant has received money directly from the victimized company only," which is merely the purport of "the fact that the defendant has received money directly from the victimized company."

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of evidence, such as the Defendant’s legal statement in the lower court and the Defendant’s statement in the investigative agency.

B. 1) Determination on the credibility of a confession of the relevant legal doctrine ought to be made by taking into account all the circumstances, including whether the content of the confession statement itself is objectively reasonable, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the background leading up to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confessions. Furthermore, in a case where the defendant consistently led to the confession from the investigative agency to the trial date, and reversed his own confession from a certain trial date, in addition to examining the credibility of the confession statement, in addition to examining the motive, reason, and circumstance leading up to the reversal of the confession, the court shall consider the motive, reason, and circumstance leading up to the reversal of the confession in light of the statements made by the investigative agency and the contents of the statements made by the statement made by the investigative agency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869, Oct. 13, 2016).