A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial shall be borne by a prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633, Nov. 11, 2010). In addition, in order to recognize a guilty of charges solely based on a victim’s statement only, the victim’s statement requires high probative value so as to have little doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. In determining whether the victim has such probative value, the victim’s statement should comprehensively consider not only the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness, but also personal elements, such as the victim’s sexual character.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do16413 Decided May 10, 2012). B.

The court below held as follows: ① whether the victim was off of his clothes at the time of the indecent act, ② where the victim was off of his clothes, ② where the victim was off of his clothes from the defendant and the victim, ③ whether the victim was her sexual organ in his hands, ③ whether the defendant was moving the place during the indecent act process, and the time of indecent act anticipated by the defendant, etc., and did not make a consistent statement at the court below that was first mentioned in several trials of the court below where the victim’s statement was more concrete and indecent acts than the police’s statement. ② The victim’s statement was first mentioned in the court below that the victim was on the part of the victim’s chest before the defendant was immediately her sexual organ and included in the victim’s sexual organ, and that the victim’s name was not easily obtained, ③ whether the victim was in his blood or sexual intercourse, ③ whether the victim was actually blood or sexually blood.