The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the defendant entered B hotel underground scam in each date specified in the facts charged in the instant case, but although there was no fact that the victim's goods were stolen, the defendant was found to have committed a false crime by threatening that the police officer would engage in the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes unless the investigating police officer makes a confession, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the credibility of a confession of relevant legal principles ought to be made by taking into account all the circumstances, including whether the content of the confession statement itself is objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the reason leading to the confession, and what is the circumstance leading to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession.

Furthermore, in cases where the Defendant consistently led to the confession from the investigative agency to the date of trial, and reversed his/her own confession from a certain trial date, in addition to examining the credibility of the confession statement, the following should be examined: (a) together with the motive, reason and circumstance behind the reversal of his/her confession, in light of the progress of the statements made by the investigative agency and the contents of the statement; and (b) whether there is evidence supporting the reversal.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17869, Oct. 13, 2016). Moreover, even if the admissibility of a confession is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the criminal facts, it is sufficient to deem that the confession of a defendant is true, not that of a processed confession, as well as that of an indirect or circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence, can serve as corroborative evidence, and the confession and corroborative evidence are mutually consistent with the facts constituting a whole crime.