2. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, determined that the Defendant’s act committed in the course of treating the victim constitutes an indecent act that infringes on the victim’s sexual self-determination.

The charges of this case, based on the premise that the defendant committed the above act under the criminal intent of such indecent act, cannot be seen as having been proven without reasonable doubt, and the charges of this case were acquitted on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The prosecutor did not submit any further evidence in the trial, and had the procedure of hearing the opinion of the professional examiner on the credibility of the victim's statement in the trial. However, the prosecutor did not use "written explanation, etc. request for explanation," which is the response of the Z of the professional examiner regarding the above procedure, as evidence or did not present any special opinion thereon.

The opinions of the professional examiners are as follows: “The stenographic records of the victim’s statement made at the Hansaw Center on April 5, 2013, and the credibility of the victim’s statement made at the prosecutor’s office on June 25, 2013 and the statements made by the victim himself/herself included in video recording records and video CDs are relatively high.”

However, it is not clear that the purport of "the credibility is high" is the degree of excluding reasonable doubts.

In addition, the analysis of the above professional examiners presented opinions on the general possibility of inferred by the records under the condition that the victim's appearance, method, process, etc. cannot be examined because it did not directly interview the victim. Since it is limited to only a part of the victim's statement concerning this case, the process of changing the victim's statement is tracking the change of the victim's statement and tracking the change of mutual contradiction or detailed information.