All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal is that there was no misunderstanding of the facts of the defendant and misunderstanding of the legal principles (guilty part of the judgment of the court below), as stated in paragraphs (1) through (3) of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the victim’s statement without credibility guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of six years, and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

Considering the credibility of the victim’s statement made by the public prosecutor (not guilty part of the judgment below), the facts charged against the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape by Relatives) and the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape by Relatives) can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

Judgment

In determining the credibility of the statement made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall assess the credibility of the statement made by the victim, etc., in consideration of all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, such as the appearance and attitude of the witness, and the penance of the statement made by the witness in the open court after the witness examination being sworn before a judge, as well as whether the statement made by the victim, etc. conforms to the rationality, logical contradiction, or empirical rule, or conforms to the third party's statement, and if the statement made by the victim, etc., such as the victim, etc., is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall be objectively viewed that the statement made by the witness