A. According to the statement of the victims of mistake of facts, it can be recognized that the defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) committed an indecent act by force against the victim F and G as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and probation) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the Defendant case consistently denies the facts charged, and where direct evidence consistent with the facts charged is the only direct evidence that corresponds to the facts charged, in order to find the Defendant guilty on the basis of the victim’s statement, a high probative value is required to the extent that there is little room for doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement in order to find the Defendant guilty on the basis of the victim’s statement, and when determining whether there is such probative value, the victim’s statement should take into account the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness, etc

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16413, May 10, 2012). Furthermore, in determining the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency by a sexual indecent act victim submitted as evidence, considering the following: (a) the child’s age is how much the child is, how much the child’s statement was made after the lapse of the time of the occurrence of the case; and (b) the guardian or investigator who first heard the injury of the child during the process of the occurrence of the case and the statement made by the investigation agency, such as providing information that is not a fact-finding or inducing a specific answer through repeated interrogation, etc., by taking into account the fact that the child’s sexual indecent act victim, who was submitted as evidence, is strong; and (c) there is a possibility that confusion with the circumstances and reality with