The judgment of the court below which found the victim and witness E guilty of the remaining charges of this case where the victim and witness E believed that credibility is doubtful, although the lower part was pushed down even though they did not have committed an indecent act by force due to scopic scopic scops, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the same grounds as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds that, in full view of the fact that the victim’s statement is specific and consistent and credibility, E’s statement also conforms to the victim’s statement, and that it sufficiently recognizes the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The judgment of this court 1) In a case where the victim’s statement is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it should not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any separate and reliable data to deem the victim’s statement objectively objectively and objectively, and the victim’s statement is somewhat consistent with the victim’s statement concerning other minor matters in major parts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). Moreover, considering the difference between the credibility evaluation method between the first instance court and the appellate court’s statement and the first instance court’s statement in light of the substance of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the credibility of the statement of the witness in the first instance court should not be readily denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012).