The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although a mistake of fact had a victim E (n, 10 years of age) play a water play in the valley, there was no fact that the defendant exceeded the clothes of the victim, or committed an indecent act by deceiving the chest and legs, etc.

The victim's statement and his money in compliance with the facts charged in the instant case is unclear, and even if two months or more have passed since they became aware of the fact of damage caused by the money, their statements are not reliable, and their statements are considerably inconsistent with the facts charged, and only part of them are abstract, and they shall not be admitted as evidence to support the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged on the grounds of the aforementioned statements.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On June 4, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (1) the Defendant took his fingers and the victims into the Fam of Dobong-gu Seoul, Seoul on the 16:30 on June 4, 2017, the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim under 13 years of age by force, (2) the victim’s chest, panty, panty, and panty from the valley. (3) The lower court determined that the victim’s Q statement is consistent with the main part, and is consistent with the rule of experience and is specific, and is not likely to have inconsistent or unreasonable parts in light of the rule of experience. (2) The victim’s memory statement appears to be confused with or inconsistent with other date, but it seems that the victim’s memory is partially inconsistent with the victim’s age, degree of disability, degree of consistency, etc., and (3) the credibility of the victim’s oral statement is not denied.