A. The Defendant did not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the victim's statement without credibility, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of credibility of the statement.

B. As to the punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspension of execution, etc. in four months of imprisonment), the Defendant asserts that the sentence is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that the sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the difference between the method of evaluating credibility of a witness’s statement in the first instance court and the appellate court based on the spirit of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the relevant legal principles are not to be followed without permission of the appellate court on the ground that there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement in the first instance court is considerably unreasonable in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the witness’s statement was concluded until the closing of oral argument in the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). Moreover, in cases where a witness’s statement is somewhat inconsistent with the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a witness’s statement in the first instance.