A. Defendant 1 (Definite person) stated that each of the statements made by E (a witness) and F (a) made it possible for a witness of the instant case to physically contradictory and physically impossible facts in the important parts, and that the statements made by the victim are not consistent, and thus, are not credibility in the content of the statement per se because they are not consistent, such as the reversal, etc. of the statements made by the witness of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

On the day of the case, the court below held that E, which had been in the same classroom as the defendant and the victim, attended the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence and the court of the court below and made a statement in a natural and specific manner on the criminal facts of the defendant. Such statement is highly reliable because it is impossible to make a statement without direct experience, ② the statement of the F is also highly reliable because it is specific and natural that the circumstances leading to witness of the crime, description of the victim's status at the time of the crime, etc. ③ there is no circumstance that E and F are likely to mislead the defendant of sexual appearance at the same school. ④ Each legal statement of H and I, consistent with the defendant's argument, are different from the fact confirmation on the day of the case, and the statement at the meeting of the Autonomous Committee on Countermeasures against School Violence on December 15, 2017.