The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years and six months of imprisonment.

except that this judgment.

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fluence) due to the use of ices, among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that there was no evidence to prove such violation, even though the Defendant made a confession.

However, there is sufficient evidence to reinforce the contents of the call between the defendant and D, copy of the police interrogation protocol on D, etc.

However, the judgment of the court below not guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evidence of confession.

The reinforcement evidence of confession of the relevant legal doctrine is sufficient if it can be recognized that the confession of the accused is not processed, but true even if the whole or essential part of the crime is not recognized.

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 Decision 2019Do6198 Decided August 29, 2019 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Do6198). Taking full account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, each police protocol regarding D, police protocol, data on communication confirmation request, etc. (the contents of the Defendant and D’s telephone call) are sufficient supporting evidence to secure the authenticity of the Defendant’s confession statement as to the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below not guilty on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of reinforcement, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the evidence of confession, which affected the conclusion

Voluntaryness and credibility of a confession statement are consistently purchased from D to the court of original trial, as shown in the facts charged, on seven occasions, from the first time from D to the time when the police first was examined.