A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts of this case, despite the difficulty in finding the credibility of the victim's statement as direct evidence of the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of order to attend a course, and employment restrictions) on the prosecutor’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is unreasonable as it is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (A) The probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such determination ought to be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial ought to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require any possible doubt, and the rejection by causing a suspicion of having probative value without a reasonable ground is impermissible as exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation.

A statement by the victim, etc. shall not be rejected without any special reason without the consent of the victim, etc., unless the major part of the statement is consistent, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in light of the empirical rule, and there is no motive or reason to make a false statement against the defendant.

In addition, when a court examines a sexual assault case, it should pay attention not to lose gender-sensitive assumption so as to understand and realize gender equality in the context of the case (see Article 5(1) of the Framework Act on Gender Equality). In our society’s culture, perception, structure, etc. centering on the perpetrator of the sexual assault case, the victim is rather negative public opinion or disadvantageous in the process of considering the victim’s awareness of the damage.