The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 6 months, and each of the crimes of Articles 1 through 3 and 5 of the decision.

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the part concerning the fraud against the victim C and F is not sufficient to conclude that the probative value or credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the investigative agency or the court of original instance differs from the statement in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of the confession, determination of the credibility of the confession should be made in consideration of the following: (a) the content of the confession’s statement objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason for the confession; (d) the background leading up to the confession; and (e) what is not contrary to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556 Decided April 29, 2010, etc.). Meanwhile, if the confession of a defendant does not have any reason prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no situation where there is no reasonable doubt among the motive and process of making the confession, it constitutes a fluorous evidence accompanied by the supporting evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do873, Jun. 12, 1992). (2) In the case of fraud against F, the Defendant came into a trial, and the Defendant was bound by the Defendant’s business partner to pay the price in the instant case of F, and the Defendant Company E was sealed into the instant financial crisis, thereby making the promise with C and F enter into the promise with C and F, there is no criminal intent to commit fraud.

However, the defendant, upon receiving a judgment from the court below with the assistance of counsel, first contests the criminal intent of defraudation and defraudation concerning this part of the facts charged on the fifth and the sixth public trial of the court below, and the prosecutor made a statement of confessioning this part of the facts charged on July 4, 2012. The above amendment of the indictment was permitted on the sixth public trial of the court below by submitting an application for modification of the indictment with respect to the fraudulent part of the facts charged in this case on July 4, 2012