A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground of the victim’s statement although there was no credibility in the victim’s statement with intellectual disability.

B. The prosecutor’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) of the lower court (an order of suspension of the execution of one year and six months, and an order of suspension of the execution of two years and 40 hours) is unreasonable as it is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s grounds for appeal ought to be examined in light of the following: (a) when determining the credibility of a statement made by an investigating agency as evidence is submitted; (b) the child’s age is how much the child’s age is; (c) how much the child was born; (d) how much the child was made after the occurrence of the case; and (e) the guardian or investigator who first heard the fact of the child’s damage in the course of the process from the occurrence of the case to the statement after the occurrence of the case; and (e) leading the child to a specific answer through a repetitive examination, etc.; (e) whether there is room for any harm to the child memory by providing the child, not any fact-finding information, or by inducing a specific answer, etc.; (e) whether the child’s statement was not affected by the questioner repeatedly; (e) whether the child’s statement was affected by the interview; and (e) whether the child’s statement was made by the interviewer; and (e) how the child’s statement was made in court.

In addition, it also includes the consistent and clear contents of the statement in one prosecutor's office, the contents of the statement, the contents of the contents of the case, the material, and the characteristic part of the perpetrator, and the information of a standardized case or more.