The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant entered the management office through the window of the pest control office was true, but there was no purpose to obtain the list of former representatives by Dong at the time, and there was no fact that the Defendant entered the management office within the management office.

Nevertheless, the court below held that there was a purpose to obtain the above list, etc. from the defendant on the grounds of the confession of the defendant without probative value due to the

The court determined that the defendant did not have any evidence of reinforcement and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles ) The defendant's confession in the court of original instance is doubtful solely on the ground that the confession in the court of appeal differs from the legal statement in the court of appeal.

In determining the credibility of a confession, it shall be determined as to whether there is a situation in which the contents of the confession are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstance leading to the confessions, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confessions among the evidence other than the confessions, and whether there is a reasonable doubt in the grounds prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or in the motive or process of the confessions.

Meanwhile, the evidence of reinforcement of confessions can only be satisfied if it is sufficient to acknowledge the truth that the confession of the defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized, and indirect or circumstantial evidence, which is not direct evidence, may also serve as evidence for reinforcement (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001, etc.).