In light of the fact that the victims' statements on the fact of damage fall short of the body and consistency, there are many parts that are inconsistent with the statements of witnesses E (the family name, the victims and witnesses' names are used in the future), the contents of the statements are not consistent with the act and objective circumstances, and the motive for false statements is sufficient, credibility is very poor.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the victims guilty of each of the facts charged in this case by reliance on the victims' statements, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion

Although the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, the judgment should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt. However, this does not require to the extent that all possible doubts are excluded, and rejection of evidence that is recognized as having probative value is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The victim’s statement is consistent with the main contents of the statement, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part in light of the empirical rule in light of the victim’s statement, and the defendant’s motive or reason that is disadvantageous to the defendant is not clearly revealed, the victim’s statement shall not be rejected without permission without any justifiable reason, unless there is a clear explanation of the motive or reason that the statement is disadvantageous to the defendant. < Amended by Act No. 15035, Oct. 25, 201