A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

For the defendant 40 hours.

A. The Defendant did not commit an indecent act against the victim by force.

The statements made by the victim that correspond to the facts charged in the instant case are not consistent, and they cannot be trusted in light of the victim’s usual conduct and immediately after the instant case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case based on the victim's statement without credibility is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The punishment of the prosecutor’s judgment (two years of suspended execution in August, community service, and forty hours of attending sexual assault treatment programs) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. Although the degree of formation of a conviction in a criminal trial on the relevant legal doctrine ought to be so long as there is no reasonable doubt, it does not require that all possible doubts be excluded, and rejection by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds that is recognized as having probative value is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt based on logical and empirical rules as to the probability of facts that are not compatible with the facts, rather than all questions and correspondences, and the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do12728, Jan. 27, 2011). Furthermore, in determining the credibility of a victim’s statement in support of facts charged, the court shall not only conform to the reasonableness, logic, appearance, or rule of experience of the content itself, but also conform to the witness’s statement in open court after being sworn at the presence of a judge.