The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The corroborating evidence of a confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to admit that the confession of the accused is not processed, even though the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not sufficient;

In addition, indirect or circumstantial evidence, which is not direct evidence, can also be reinforced evidence, and if facts constituting a crime can be acknowledged as a whole as evidence of guilt, it is sufficient to establish evidence of guilt.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3041 Decided July 12, 2007, and 2017Do20247 Decided March 15, 2018, etc.). 2. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant, on the grounds that there is no evidence to reinforce the Defendant’s confession as to the part of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. from Smoking by Smoking (hereinafter referred to as “instant charges”) listed in [Attachment 1 to 15] as indicated in the judgment of the lower court among the charges against the Defendant.

3. However, the following circumstances may be revealed, based on the evidence duly admitted:

The Defendant consistently admitted this part of the facts charged from the investigative agency to the original judgment.

The Defendant stated that he dumped marijuana at the convenience store by removing the existing tobacco, inserting it in a way of smoking, and thereafter, according to the smoking method of marijuana searched and discovered on the Internet, and then smoked 14 times by cutting the marijuana above, making it possible to smoke as soon as possible by attaching a fire, and that he dumped it with co-defendant B of the first instance court convicted him. The Defendant stated that he dumped it in a pipe with respect to the smoking part of marijuana together with Co-defendant B of the first instance court which was convicted.

In light of the fact that the defendant made a different statement in the way of smoking marijuana depending on the passage of time, the above statement does not directly experience.