1. As to the defendant case

A. 1) In order to determine guilty of the facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial, a judge must have evidence of probative value to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

In particular, in order to determine the guilty of a victim’s statement only based on the victim’s statement, there must be little probative value to the extent that there is little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. In determining whether the victim has such probative value, a comprehensive consideration should be given not only to the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness of the statement itself, but also to personal elements such as the victim’s intellectual ability and character.

Therefore, if there is no such probative value as above and the possibility of falsity cannot be ruled out, only the statement on the remaining facts of damage should not be readily concluded as true, and it should be carefully determined whether the statement satisfies the probative value required in a criminal trial by closely verifying the rationality, consistency, objective reasonableness, etc. of the content of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 201, etc.). Meanwhile, the prosecutor’s specific criminal facts stated in the indictment, in particular, the date and time of the crime specified in the facts charged, are the main object of the Defendant’s defense right, and there is evidence with such degree of probative value as above, and there is proof on criminal facts on the grounds that there is a probable probability of committing another crime even if there is lack of such evidence.

It should not be easily determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011, etc.). 2) The lower court determined the probative value of a victim’s statement, the only evidence in sexual assault cases involving intellectual disabled persons, with normal judgment and recognition ability.