A. The statements of the victim in the part of the defendant's case (fact-finding) are consistent when considering the whole, and the statements in the G's original court at the court below are insufficient to be more reliable than the statements in the police in light of the circumstances of the change of statements.

Nevertheless, the victim’s statement and G police’s statement consistent with the facts charged are rejected, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of judgment

B. The lower court’s judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request for attachment order on the premise that the charge of this case’s case’s case is insufficient to prove the crime.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) around July 2016 to August 21, 200, the Defendant: (a) went to the victim C (one’s life, nine years of age) with his disability on his own driving by burning the victim C (one’s life, two years of age) to his front seat with his customer; (b) had the victim induced her body by causing livering the victim, and had the victim her body uncomfortable and forced indecent act by force; (c) the Defendant had the victim her mind while driving a taxi on the DNA with his own, and it is difficult for the Defendant to believe that he will not enter the telecom, and that he would stop the taxi to the above telecom and stop the taxi to the near the above telecom; and (d) the Defendant made a false statement on the part of the victim’s hand and made it difficult for the Defendant to view that he did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that he would have any other effect on the part of the victim’s hand.