All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized evidence 15 through 18 shall be confiscated.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The court below found the defendant guilty of all charges of mistake of facts, even though the defendant received money from AA, AB, AB, No. 8 No. 12, AD and No. 17, No. 17, which was attached to the judgment of the court of first instance, not by deceiving or deceiving that he sold narcotics, but by deceiving that he was remitted mobile phone proceeds already sold.

The defendant with mental disorder was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the second judgment.

Each sentence (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, confiscation, and fine for 3 million won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

The court of the judgment of the court below ex officio decided to consolidate each appeal case of the court below against the defendant, and each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, even though the above reasons for ex officio destruction are the above reasons, the defendant's above mistake of facts and the argument of mental or physical disorder are still subject to a reasonable deliberation, and this is examined below.

In a case where the defendant has made a statement that recognizes the facts charged at an investigation agency or a court of fact-finding regarding the partial fraud of the judgment of the court below, the credibility of the confession should be determined in consideration of the following: (a) the contents of the statement have objectively rationality; (b) the motive or reason of the confession; (c) the background leading up to the confession; and (d) the circumstances leading up to the confession, and (e) the existence of credibility of the confession,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5407, Nov. 23, 2006). The lower court duly adopted the judgment.