A. Although there are parts that are inconsistent and inconsistent with each other among the statements made by the victim I and H, it is natural in view of the lack of the victims’ intellectual ability and the long-term period from the date of the crime.

In particular, the statements of the victims are clear, consistent, and there is no mutual conflict in the core matters which constitute the elements of the crime.

In addition, IO and K statements also add the credibility of the victims' statements.

B. The lower court found that the Defendant’s medical malpractice and diagnosis against the victim H were related to the victim I, thereby committing an error in the process of determining evidence.

In light of these circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant forced the victim I to commit an indecent act like the facts charged and threatened the victim H by carrying dangerous articles.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous in the determination.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted up to the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court shall solely on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment.