The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor's request regarding the part of the case of the defendant and the part of the case of the request for attachment order, and the only defendant appealed against this. Thus, there is no interest in appeal regarding the part of the request for attachment order.

Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and Electronic Monitoring, this part is excluded from the scope of the adjudication of this Court.

The gist of the grounds for appeal (defendants) is as follows: (a) there is no fact that the accused, as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the original judgment, has committed an indecent act or attempted sexual intercourse with the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the victim's statement without credibility guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (the imprisonment of five years and six months and 160 hours and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In a case where a witness’s statement, including a victim, etc., is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exists any separate evidence to deem that it is objectively acceptable from an objective perspective and objectively consistent with the facts charged. The mere fact that the witness’s statement is not somewhat consistent with the witness’s statement on the major part, such as where consistency exists in the witness’s statement and other minor matters, does not readily deny the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008; 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). The lower court determined that the lower court: (a) the following circumstances duly adopted and investigated by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) sexual assault damage, etc. between the victim and the lower court’s investigation agency.