The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.
except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the key bank of this case was operated independently by B, and the defendant conspired with B to operate the key bank, and the defendant did not have any act of arranging sexual traffic, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, 40 hours of order, additional collection 29.4 million won, and 3 years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.
A. Determination of facts as to the assertion of mistake of facts should be made by taking into account all the circumstances, including whether the content of a 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 confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2413, Feb. 26, 1985; 2013Do10277, Nov. 14, 2013). Furthermore, in a case where the defendant consistently led to confession from an investigative agency to the date of trial, and reversed the Gap self confession from a certain trial date, in addition to examining the credibility of the confession statement, the court below’s adoption of the facts charged by the defendant in consultation with the investigative agency, including the motive, reason, and circumstance leading up to the reversal of confession, and whether there is evidence supporting the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do1781, Jun. 17, 2019).
The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
(1) The defendant is an investigative agency and the original judgment.