The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) was that the Defendant passed a multi-use room in front of a female toilet in order to take a laundry room at the time of the instant case (the specific location of the appeal is see Articles 4 and 5 of the Reasons for Appeal). However, there was no fact that the Defendant attempted to take a victim by entering a female toilet or by passing a shower room beyond the cell phone above.

Although the victim's statement is contrary to the result of digital evidence analysis, which is an objective evidence, the court below took full part of the victim's statement on the ground that "the limit of memory due to the passage of time". There is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding the legal principles on the credibility of the victim's statement.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Considering the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance trial and the appellate trial based on the spirit of substantial direct deliberation of the relevant legal doctrine, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009). Furthermore, the victim’s statement is consistent with the main contents of the statement, and there is no portion inconsistent with the empirical rule in light of the empirical rule, and there is no portion of unreasonable or contradictory in itself, and there is no obvious motive or reason to make a false statement against the defendant.