Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) - misunderstanding of facts did not have committed an indecent act by force against the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, based on the statement of the victim without credibility.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 10 years of order to attach an electronic device, and matters to be observed) is unreasonable as it is too uneasible and unfair. 2) Although there are no special circumstances under which disclosure and notification order may not be disclosed or notified of the personal information of the accused, the lower court’s failure to impose an order to disclose or notify the personal information on the accused is unreasonable.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. 1) The key issue of this case is that the Defendant denies all the crimes identical to the facts charged in this case from the investigative agency to the court of this case. Meanwhile, the direct evidence to acknowledge the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is the victim’s statement. The remaining evidence is based on the victim’s statement or is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. As such, the key issue of this case is whether the victim’s credibility of the victim’s statement is the credibility of the victim’s statement. 2) When the relevant legal principles determine the credibility of the statement made by the victim of sexual indecent act at the investigative agency, the child’s age is strong, and it is possible for the victim to confuse the above and reality with the victim’s statement or not to properly recognize the source of memory.