A. At the time of the school violence survey, the victim made a statement to the Defendant, the head of the school at which the victim was the victim, who was the head of the school at the time of the school violence survey, and the teacher in charge reported it to the 117th School Violence Report Center. The victim was prosecuted by stating the same damage as the facts charged at the time of video recording investigation at the Seaba Center.

B. Therefore, since the above investigation agency’s statement is more reliable than the victim’s legal statement, it is recognized that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victim, such as the facts charged in the instant case.

2. The victim’s statement can be deemed as direct evidence of the facts charged in the instant case.

On June 3, 2016, the victim made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case after being examined by the witness at the Gangnam Sea Center of Gangwon on June 3, 2016. However, on September 5, 2017, the victim was present as a witness at the six-time trial date of the first instance trial of the court of first instance on September 5, 2017.

“The first instance court made a statement to the effect that it was credibility in the above legal statement of the injured party.”

I considered it.

In light of the contents of the judgment of the first instance and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of the further examination of evidence by the time of the closing of argument in the appellate court, the appellate court's judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is subject to the judgment of the appellate court.