The circumstances that the statement of the victim presented by the court below is inconsistent or inconsistent with the circumstantial evidence are not significant before and after the fact-finding that does not affect the proof of criminal facts. The victim's statement is credibility in light of the victim's opinion, such as the victim's counsel and the statement analysis expert, etc. who consulted the victim in light of the fact-finding that the victim has no reason to pay false damage at risk to the defendant.

However, the judgment of the court below that rejected the credibility of the victim's statement that corresponds to the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a mistake of fact.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that there is sufficient credibility and probative value in the victim’s statement, the only evidence supporting the instant facts charged, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, as well as sufficient credibility and probative value.

It is difficult to view it.

The decision was determined.

1) The statements made by the victim concerning the fact that the victim's chests and scarcitys of the victim (hereinafter referred to as "Class 1 criminal facts") twice in total on the date of 2015 are not reliable in light of the following circumstances.

① Although excluded from the facts charged in the instant case among the Type 1 criminal facts, it is not consistent with the first fact of damage alleged by the Defendant that the first indecent act was the most shocked by the Defendant, and if it was actually experienced, the detailed matters that should be forgotten have also been memory.

(2) With respect to the second crime among the crimes of Type 1, the victim has failed to clearly specify the time of the crime and to specifically state the detailed matters to be memory if he/she actually experienced.

(b) the injured party.