The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for twelve years.

Sexual assault, 80 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: In regard to the crime of misconception of facts and the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape in Relatives) 1), although the Defendant had access to the victim who was in prison uniformed and exceeded the victim’s body and forcedly, the victim did not have reached a sexual relationship. Although the facts were true, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by believing only the victim’s statement without credibility. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (nine years of imprisonment, etc.) which sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, in determining the credibility of the statement, the lower court: “In cases where the victim, who is a minor, made a statement that he/she was subject to sexual assault, such as rape or indecent act by force, from his/her relatives in a position to protect and supervise him/her, the victim, despite being aware of the absence of physical evidence or witness in addition to his/her own statement, clearly expresses the victim’s personal injury at the risk of criminal punishment by his/her guardian, and does not clearly express the motive or reason to make the statement by falsity, and if the contents of the statement are factual and specific, consistent, consistent, and there are no parts inconsistent with the empirical rule, even if the method of expression appears to be somewhat ambiguous or inconsistent, the credibility of the statement should not be dismissed without any special reason.”