All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the victim (misunderstanding of facts) is merely a second degree of intellectual disability and has a intellectual ability at an elementary school level; (b) it is highly likely that the victim made a false statement according to the error in conducting the so-called inspection of sources that frequently appeared in the child’s statement (the confusion between the circumstances and reality or failure to properly recognize the source of memory). Therefore, the victim’s statement is not reliable; and (c)

It is unfair that the sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unhued.

Judgment

The Defendant denies all of the crimes, and the direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case is the full statement made by the investigative agency and the court below at the court below.

Therefore, the key issue of this case is whether to recognize the credibility of the victim's statement.

When determining the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency by a child who has committed an indecent act in the statement made by an investigative agency, taking into account the fact that the child is considerably affected by the child’s cancer and that there is a possibility that the child is confused with his standing and reality or that the source of memory is not properly perceived, how much the child is, how much the child’s statement made by the investigative agency, how much the child was made from the time of the occurrence of the case, how much the child’s first statement made by the investigative agency after the occurrence of the case, and how there is no room for the guardian or investigator who first heard the fact of the child’s damage to the child, such as providing information that is not a fact-finding or inducing the child to answer a specific answer through repeated inquiries, etc., whether the victim’s statement made in accordance with the investigation by the guardian, etc. who discovered the proviso, or whether the victim’s voluntary damage was notified, is consistent and clear.