The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the process of misunderstanding facts, while the Defendant was divingd with the victim, the victim satising the Defendant’s chest first, and the satisfyed the Defendant’s chests, etc. against the Defendant’s sexual intercourse. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed an indecent act against the victim’s will. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant on the grounds of the victim’s statement without credibility was erroneous. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, forty hours of order for sexual assault treatment program, three years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s above sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court of the relevant legal principles shall assess the credibility of the statement, taking into account all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penology of the statement, and the penology of the statement, which are hard to record in the witness examination protocol, after being sworn before a judge, in order to determine the credibility of the statement made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In addition, where the statement made by the witness, including the victim, conforms to the facts charged, it shall not be dismissed without permission, unless there is any other reliable evidence that can be objectively deemed to have no credibility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012).

In the case of consistency in the part, the credibility of the statement is not possible solely on the basis of the lack of somewhat consistency in the statement concerning other minor matters.