The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant made a confession of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there was no supporting evidence to support the confession of the Defendant, such as the fact that there was no sex relationship with the Defendant at the hotel, etc. recorded in the facts charged by the police, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Reinforcement evidence for confessions as to the existence of corroborating evidence is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that confessions of the defendant are true, not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not recognized. Thus, it is sufficient to admit the facts constituting the crime as a whole as evidence of guilt if confessions and confessions are mutual, and it is sufficient to establish the facts of the crime as a whole. Furthermore, as long as people's memory has limits, there is a difference in what degree between confessions and supporting evidence, and as such, if the confessions are consistent with important parts and their authenticity is guaranteed, it shall be deemed that

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2343 Decided May 29, 2008, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) recognizing that the defendant was sexual intercourse with the P on each date and time indicated in the facts charged, despite the absence of memory, the defendant stated that the location of the KM, which was specified as accommodation place, was a correction of erroneous matters in the accusation book to be located near the JV located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, but rather near the KMI; (ii) the statement to the same effect is consistently made by the court of the first instance; and (iii) the statement of P’s multiple rates, the details of the use of the credit card and the details of receipt of the hotel use of the defendant’s credit card, respectively, on each date stated in the facts charged.