"The amount of evidence necessary to corroborate a confession is left entirely within the province of the jury and corroboration in any material particular satisfies the requirements of the law. Gilder v. State, 219 Ga. 495, 498 (2) ( 133 S.E.2d 861); Morrison v. State, 157 Ga. App. 405, 406 ( 278 S.E.2d 60); Griswold v. State, 159 Ga. App. 22, 23-24 (3) ( 282 S.E.2d 679); Owens v. State, 157 Ga. App. 198 ( 276 S.E.2d 873); Cunningham v. State, 248 Ga. 835, 837 (3) ( 286 S.E.2d 427)." Reynolds v. State, 168 Ga. App. 555 (1) ( 309 S.E.2d 867).

The defendant's involvement with the automobile in which the victim was kidnapped, the taking of her to a home at another location, and many other corroborating facts and circumstances were ample to show corroboration of his statements (if in fact the entire crime was not admitted). The amount of evidence necessary to corroborate a confession is left entirely within the province of the jury and corroboration in any material particular satisfies the requirements of the law. Gilder v. State, 219 Ga. 495, 498 (2) ( 133 S.E.2d 861); Morrison v. State, 157 Ga. App. 405, 406 ( 278 S.E.2d 60); Griswold v. State, 159 Ga. App. 22, 23-24 (3) ( 282 S.E.2d 679); Owens v. State, 157 Ga. App. 198 ( 276 S.E.2d 873); Cunningham v. State, 248 Ga. 835, 837 (3) ( 286 S.E.2d 427). The evidence of physical injury to the victim's body, both as to bruises and forcing her into the automobile and the various repeated acts of rape and sodomy, supported a conviction of kidnapping with bodily harm.

All of these witnesses provided evidence upon which the jury could infer that Soler committed the crimes charged. See Morrison v. State , 157 Ga. App. 405, 406, 278 S.E.2d 60 (1981) (Testimony by defendant’s acquaintances that defendant admitted robbing restaurant, as well as other evidence, was sufficient to permit rational trier of fact reasonably to find defendant guilty of armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt.). Accordingly, we find the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to authorize the jury’s verdict in this case and the trial court did not err in finding that Soler was not entitled to a new trial.