The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (not guilty part of the grounds) is unreasonable to require the victim who is a child of seven years of age to make a statement, the victim's statement is unlikely to have made a false statement only on the part of the damage, and the child's statement to correct the damage is inevitable. Therefore, there is a possibility of contamination in the victim's statement under the circumstances where specific contamination is not discovered.

In light of the fact that the judgment of the victim is unreasonable, and that the fact that the fingers were put in the negative part does not necessarily necessarily cause a marbling or the upper part, the victim's statement is credibility. Thus, this part of the facts charged that the defendant put the fingers into the negative part of the victim and similar act is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment did not have the following evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, and thus, the only evidence that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is the victim’s statement. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the victim’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged has sufficient credibility and probative value

It is difficult to see

In light of this, the lower court acquitted this part of the charges.

1) The part of the interrogation protocol (Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act) on the accused prepared by the police officer in charge of evidence without admissibility of evidence that “the accused admitted to the examination of the accused as evidence to the effect that he denies the contents in the court of original instance.” The part of the testimony protocol (Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act), F’s legal statement and the statement in the investigative agency prepared by the police officer in charge of judicial police officers in the court of original instance that “the victim respondeded from G with the contents of the damaged facts that the victim expressed to G (Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act),” and F’s statement.