A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not commit an indecent act by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged, and the victim, E, and F, who correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, did not have credibility. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, which erred by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. 2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment, etc.) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is based on the determination of the credibility of the victim’s statement, etc. supporting the facts charged. Of course, the court shall not without delay reject the victim’s statement, etc., unless there are any other reliable materials to deem credibility objectively acceptable in light of the aforementioned legal principles: (a) whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, and empirical rule; (b) whether the evidence or third party’s statement conforms to the evidence or evidence; and (c) whether the witness’s statement, such as the appearance or attitude of the witness who is in the open court after being sworn before the judge, and the appearance and appearance of the witness who is in the witness’s statement, which is difficult to be recorded in the witness examination protocol, (d) if the victim’s statement, including the victim, conforms to the facts charged, and (e) whether it conforms to the witness’s statement in the witness examination protocol (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Do742368, Apr. 15, 2008).

The court below held.