The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors) did not commit an indecent act against the victimO (hereinafter “victim”) and assault him/her as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. Although the degree of formation of a conviction in a criminal trial on the relevant legal doctrine ought to be so long as there is no reasonable doubt, it does not require that all possible doubts be excluded, and rejection by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds that is recognized as having probative value is beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt based on logical and empirical rules as to the probability of facts that are not compatible with the facts, rather than all questions and correspondences, and the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt.

(2) In order to determine the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc., supporting the facts charged, the court shall not reject the statement without permission, unless there is any other evidence to deem the credibility of the statement as being objectively consistent with the facts charged, unless there is any other evidence to believe that the statement made by the victim, etc., including the victim, etc., is consistent with the rationality, logic, gender, or rule of experience, or conforms with the witness evidence or third party’s statement in the presence of a judge, and the appearance or attitude of the witness who is going to make a statement in the open court after taking an oath before the judge, and the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance or attitude of the witness, and the penance of the statement, which is difficult to record, is evaluated as credibility by directly observing various circumstances that are obtained by directly observing the facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012).