A. The Defendant alleged that misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in a negative part of the victim B (hereinafter “victim”), and that “the Defendant first asserted that the victim’s fingers were included in the sound book.”

Although there was no sexual intercourse by inserting a sexual organ only with a sexual organ and inserting a sexual organ, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant alleged to the effect that it is similar to the grounds for appeal in this part. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim by inserting his sexual organ into the victim’s sound book, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion and convicted this part of the charges

(1) Statements made by the police and the prosecution of a victim are specific and consistent with the core part of the fact of damage, such as the situation at the time of damage, details of specific damage, fear and sense of harm, the response expressed by the victim, the response of the victim, etc., and the response of the victim, and the contents thereof are natural and unreasonable or contradictory in light of the empirical rule.

In addition, according to the above statement contents and the body, action, etc. of the victim who described the defendant's behavior at the time of the statement, the victim appears to be a child of 7 years of age, but is accurately aware of his sexual organ location, function, etc., to some extent. In particular, with respect to the part that the defendant was unable to make a statement without actual experience, such as embarras or sense, at the time when the defendant inserted his sexual organ, it is expressed specifically and mentally in his language only.