The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

A sexual assault therapy program against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was aware of the fact with the consent of the victim’s mother, and only was the victim sparly with the consent of the victim’s mother, and did not forcibly commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Juveniles against Sexual Abuse, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a 7 years of imprisonment, 80 hours’ order for sexual assault treatment programs, 5 years’ order for disclosure, and 5 years’ employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal shall be made ex officio prior to the judgment.

A public prosecutor added "a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (Rape, etc. of Minors under the age of 13)" to the name of the offense in the first instance. Article 8-2 (2) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof (amended by Act No. 8059, Oct. 27, 2006); Articles 298, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act; the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) was added to the name of the offense in the second instance; and Article 8-2 (2) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (amended by Act No. 8059, Oct. 27, 2006); and Article 42 of the former Criminal Act was amended

Therefore, although the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still maintained as to the changed facts, and this is examined in the below.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In determining the credibility of the statement by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court of the relevant legal principles, as well as whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, inconsistency, or rule of experience, or conforms to evidence or third party’s statement, is made public after being sworn before a judge.