A. Defendant 1 (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) is merely a fact that only rhyms the victim’s inside at the time of the instant case with the inside of the buckbucks, and there is no fact that the victim’s sexual organ was buck (misunderstanding of facts). 2) Even if the Defendant’s act was found guilty, the sentencing of the lower court (20 million won and orders to complete sexual assault treatment programs for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable as it is too unhued.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts ought to be examined in light of the following: (a) when determining the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency as evidence is submitted; (b) the child’s age is how much the child’s age is; (c) how much the child was born; and (d) how much the child made a statement after the occurrence of the case; and (d) the guardian or investigator who first heard the facts of the child’s damage during the process from the occurrence of the case to the statement after the occurrence of the case; (c) whether there is room for changing the child memory by providing the child with non-fact-finding information or inducing a specific answer through repeated newspapers, etc.; (d) whether the child’s statement was not affected repeatedly; and (e) whether the child’s statement was affected by the interview; and (e) whether the child’s statement was made by the interviewee; and (e) whether the child’s statement was damaged by the victim’s statement at the time of the above statement.

In addition, the content of the statement in one investigative agency includes information on a standardized case or more cases, whether the content is consistent and clear, whether the content is abundant, whether there is a description about the characteristic of the case, stolen and perpetrator, and whether it contains information on a standardized case or more.