The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A sexual assault treatment program for 40 hours is provided to the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, with the consent of the victim, was sexual intercourse with the victim, but did not have sexual intercourse by taking advantage of the victim’s state of impossibility to resist.

A victim's statement is not consistent and is not reliable in light of the age and relationship between the defendant and the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the facts charged on the basis of the victim’s statement without credibility.

B. The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance court's sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the victim’s statements shall not be dismissed without any special reason, unless the main part of the statement is consistent, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part of the statement in light of the empirical rule, and there is no obvious motive or reason to make a false statement against the Defendant.

In addition, the number of countermeasures against sexual assault victims is likely to vary depending on the victim's gender, relationship with the perpetrator, and specific circumstances. Therefore, denying the probative value of the victim's statement in individual and specific cases without sufficiently considering the special circumstances where the victim is faced with sexual assault victims cannot be deemed as evidence judgment in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of justice and equity.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7709 Decided October 25, 2018, and Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2614 Decided July 11, 2019). Meanwhile, the Criminal Procedure Act adopts the principle of substantial direct examination as one of the elements of the principle of public trial-oriented trial that the formation of conviction and innocence against the substance of a criminal case ought to be based on a trial in court.

This is a way for judges to directly investigate original evidence in court.