Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.

1. misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding of legal principles: Although the defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") did not commit the same act as the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below (hereinafter referred to as the "indecent act in this case"), the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the defendant's case also asserted the same purport as the above mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victims on the ground of the legal principles and reasons set forth in its reasoning, and determined that the defendant committed an indecent act against the victims, and rejected the defendant's above assertion. 2) In general, when determining the credibility of the statement made by an investigative agency, considering the fact that the child's sexual indecent act victim, which was generally admitted as evidence, is strong crypology by the questioner, and that there is a possibility that confusions with the circumstances and reality or is unlikely to properly recognize the source of its contents, the child's age is how much, how much the child's statement was made after the occurrence of the case, how much the child's first statement was made after the occurrence of the case, whether the guardian or investigator who heard the damage to the child was made at the time of the occurrence of the case, and whether the child's statement was affected by another investigation agency, not by his answer.