The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Of the facts charged of this case, the victim.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the fraud of the victim’s name unclaimed winners (No. 3 of the indictments in the case of the 2013 senior group711) and the summary of the judgment of the lower court in this part of the indictments in this case are as follows: “The Defendant, at the end of November, 2012, by deceiving the victim as if he was involved in a traffic accident after facing some of the following: (a) he was driving by the unclaimed winners of the victim’s name; and (b) the lower court convicted him of this part of the indictments in this case.”

B. In a case where the confession of a defendant in the judgment of the trial court is an unfavorable evidence against him/her, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt. Thus, in a case where the defendant is found guilty on the basis of only the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007). Since substantial concurrent crimes are concurrent crimes, the confession of each criminal fact requires reinforced evidence for the confession.

However, even after examining the evidence as stated by the court below as well as other records, there is no evidence to prove any reinforcement of the facts charged except for the confession of the defendant. Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in violation of Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision has the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and on the other hand, the court below's decision including this part of the facts charged.