The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s confession was the only evidence, even though the victim’s statement could be reinforced as to the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a quasi-indecent act by blood relative) around September 2015 and around March 2016, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a 5 years of suspended sentence for 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor, observation of protection between 4 years, and lecture of sexual assault treatment for 80 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant committed an indecent act by deceiving the victim’s sound and chest by taking advantage of the victim’s her parent-child condition, i.e., e., having taken advantage of the Defendant’s home condition in the Daejeon East-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, around 02:00 and around 03:00.

2) On March 2016, around 02:0 to 03:00 at the end of the day, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim C at the above place by the said method.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there is no supporting evidence that the Defendant’s statement at the investigative agency and the court of the lower court, although the Defendant made a confession of this part of the facts charged, as evidence of this part of the crime, are flexible and that the confession of the Defendant is true.

(c)

The judgment of this court 1) The evidence of confessions is sufficient when it can be recognized that the confession of the defendant is not a processed one, even if the whole or essential part of the facts constituting the crime is not sufficient to acknowledge the whole or essential part of the crime, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of the defendant is true, not a processed one. The indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence, not a direct one, can also be evidence. In addition, when evidence of confessions and reinforcements are inconsistent and it is possible to prove the facts of the crime as a whole, it is sufficient to prove the evidence of guilt (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8704, Jan. 27, 2006; 2008Do543, May 29, 2008).