A. In fact, although the Defendant was aware of the fact that he did not commit an indecent act against the victim, he did not know that the victim had a intellectual disability (misunderstanding of fact). B. Even if the Defendant’s act of sentencing was found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (i.e., imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and half years and 80 hours) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of fact misunderstanding 1) When determining the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency as evidence is submitted, considering the child’s age, how much the child’s age is, how much after the occurrence of the case, how much the child was made after the occurrence of the case, and how much the guardian or investigator who first heard the facts damaged by the child during the process of making the statement after the occurrence of the case, and inducing the child to make a specific answer through a repetitive interrogation, etc., whether there is room to cause a harm to the child memory. Whether there is room for a harm to the child’s memory, whether the above statement was not repeatedly made by the questioner, whether it was affected by another child’s statement made at the time of the above statement, whether the interview was affected by the questioner, whether the child’s statement made at the time of the interview was affected by the interview, and what kind of statement was made in the court.

In addition, it is also necessary to comprehensively review the contents of the statement in one prosecutor's office, such as whether the contents are consistent and clear, whether the contents are abundant, whether there is a description about the characteristic part of the case, stolen, and perpetrator, and whether it includes information of a standardized case or more.