beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
The judgment below
No. 7 of the face 7 is the protection of children and juveniles against sexual abuse.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
There is no fluorous act by indecent act, such as cutting off the victim with panty and cutting off the panty.
The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor (two years and six months) of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.
Judgment
The accused denies all of the crimes, and the victim's direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in this case is the full statement made in the investigative agency and the trial court.
Therefore, the key issue of this case is whether the credibility of the victim's statement can be recognized.
In determining the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency, taking into account the fact that the child’s statement was significantly affected at the time of questioner’s suggestion, confusion with the situation, or is unlikely to properly recognize the source of memory, etc., whether the child’s statement made by the investigative agency is how much the child is, how much the child was made, how much the child’s statement made by the investigative agency was made after the occurrence of the case, and how much the guardian or investigator who first heard the fact of the child’s damage was made after the occurrence of the case at the investigative agency, and how there is no room to bring a change to the child memory, such as providing information that is not facts, or inducing a specific answer by repeated inquiries, etc., according to the investigation by the guardian, etc. discovered the proviso, etc., whether the child’s statement made by the investigative agency is consistent and clear, and whether the victim’s statement made by the investigative agency is sufficiently detailed, including detailed descriptions about the characteristics of the victim, and whether the victim’s statement goes beyond the framework of the same case’s case should be duly examined (see, 2006.)