The judgment below

We reverse the guilty part of the defendant's case.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The victim C’s statements are highly likely to have been contaminated by the investigator’s cancer or inducement, and the content of the statement itself is also unclear or inconsistent. The victim’s statements are more likely to be contaminated by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles about the victim C’s each indecent act and similarity with the victim C.

In addition, the victim C had a reason to have the defendant's complaint, such as making the defendant often in a usual problem behavior, and there was a strong tendency to make a false statement about the difficult situation. Therefore, it is difficult to believe the victim C's statement about damage as it is.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds of the victim C’s statement without credibility.

B) The first statement made on April 19, 2019 by the victim B of child abuse against the victim B was made on April 19, 2019, and it is difficult to believe that the statements made at the time are contradictory in itself. In addition, the victim B expressed repeatedly the intent that they were not in compliance with the Defendant in each investigation made after April 24, 2019, April 30, 2019, May 15, 2019, and each investigation made on May 15, 2019, the victim B’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged cannot be recognized as credibility. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the sole basis of a part of the statements made by the victim B without credibility (the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged) and thus, is unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the victim B's similarity act with the victim B has been consistently stated to the effect that the victim B was subject to the similarity act from the defendant, and even if the statement is somewhat unclear, it can be understood in view of the victim B's being a child of 6 years of age, and the fact that the victim B's wife was exposed to the victim B's wife was strong.