The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Sexual assault, 40 hours against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (Rape)), the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged on the basis of each of the statements made by the victim and H, with the exception of sexual intercourses under an agreement with the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) on March 21, 2018, and did not commit rape after suppressing the victim’s resistance by assaulting or threatening the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six years of imprisonment and forty hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall make an evaluation of the credibility of the statements, taking into account all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination record, including the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penology of the statement, which are hard to record in the witness examination record, after being sworn before a judge, in order to determine the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In addition, where the statements made by the victim, etc. are consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there is any separate evidence that may objectively deem the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc., objectively and objectively, and there is no other evidence that may prove the credibility of the statements made by the witness. In addition, where the statements made by the witness are consistent with other important parts, the mere fact that the statements made by the witness are somewhat inconsistent with the statements made in other matters, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10728 delivered on March 14, 2008). H appears as a witness in the court of original instance and is a victim of the statement prepared by the police.