In addition, in relation to the third rape, the victim took a little angle of the time of the crime, which was corrected again, but it was due to the fact that the date of the crime was before the date of birth of D, the Defendant’s wife, but was due to the fact that the date of the crime was earlier than the scheduled date of delivery, and was due to the fact that the victim’s intellectual ability was considered, there is a reasonable reason to correct the above, and the G court’s statement at the court below that the Defendant’s house and the human resources supplier stayed in the lodging provided at the above time and at the above time, is difficult to believe in light of G’s statement at the investigative agency, and therefore, the credibility of the victim’s statement cannot be rejected solely on

With regard to the fourth rape, the victim made a concrete statement about the background and situation of rape committed by the defendant, its contents are generally consistent, and D also made a partial statement consistent with the victim's statement to the effect that the defendant and the victim have sexual intercourse when he/she got out of the bed in the bed in the bed investigation agency, and that the victim's statement in this part is also reliable.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the victim's statement cannot be reliable. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The victim involved in coercion has consistently and specifically stated the process of preparing the loan certificate of this case. Thus, the victim's statement may be reliable.

Han L at the time of drawing up the loan certificate of this case.