The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In determining the credibility of a confession, the determination shall take into account all the circumstances, including whether the contents of the confession themselves are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason for the confession, what is the reason leading to the confession, what is the circumstance leading to the confession, and whether there is no conflict or inconsistency with the confession among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession.

(2) On January 27, 2012, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the Defendant’s confession in the prosecution and the first instance court, with respect to murdering the Victim C, cannot be deemed as having probative value to the extent that reasonable doubt may be ruled out due to various circumstances, such as the motive and motive of the crime, motive and reason for the confession, and the objective rationality of the confession content, etc. on the grounds that the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above measures by the court below are just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, exceeding the bounds of the logical and empirical rules, misapprehending the legal principles

3. As to the Defendant’s attempted murder against the victim H, the lower court is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s confession at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that the Defendant attempted to kill the victim H was true in light of the fact-based facts, such as the background leading up to the confession, the statement on the method of crime, and the victim’s present situation is unclear, and there is no evidence to support the said confession, and it is based on the first instance court and the lower court.