2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of a victim’s statement, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court below found the victim’s statement of this case guilty on the ground that the victim’s statement of this case, including the victim, etc., may not be dismissed without permission, unless there are any separate reliable data that can objectively be objectively deemed objectively acceptable in light of the victim’s statement of the facts charged and objectively consistent with the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). The court below found the victim’s credibility in the facts charged on the ground that the victim’s statement of this case, including the victim’s appearance and attitude, and the penance of the statement of this case, are consistent with the reasonableness, logic, and empirical rule of the contents of the statement itself or the third party’s statement after being sworn in the presence of a judge, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, including the consistency of the victim’s statement.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and the court below cannot be deemed to have erred by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Ex officio determination as to whether to issue an employment restriction order, Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, which was amended by Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018 and enforced on June 12, 2019, is an ex officio determination as to whether to issue an employment restriction order, and Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Disabled Persons, which was enforced on June 12, 2