A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the judgment of the court below is that the evidence shown in the facts charged of this case is nothing more than the victim's statement. (1) The defendant consistently denies the crime, (2) the victim's statement is not clear and the victim's statement is not strong, and (3) the defendant was punished as a crime of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse) by dopingly punishing the victim and his/her father and children, and the victim was living in the protection facility because he/she did not leave the defendant. In light of the fact that the victim's appraisal against the defendant was not good, it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement is doubtful, and thus, the defendant was acquitted of the facts charged of this case.

B. In determining the credibility of a statement when a minor victim made a statement that he/she had suffered a sex offense, such as rape or indecent act by force, from his/her relative who is in the position to protect and supervise him/her, the part in determining the credibility of the statement appears to be inconsistent with the minor part of the statement, provided that the victim, despite being aware of the absence of physical evidence or direct witness, other than his/her own statement, revealed the fact at the risk of criminal punishment of his/her guardian, and does not clearly reveal the motive or reason to make a false statement. In addition, if the contents of the statement are factual and specific, consistent, and there are no parts inconsistent with the empirical rule, the contents of the statement are somewhat ambiguous or unreasonable or contradictory in light of the empirical rule.