All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not commit an indecent act against the victim as stated in the instant facts charged. The lower judgment convicting the Defendant on the grounds of the victim’s statement without credibility was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months, etc.) claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The issue of this case is whether the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is "the credibility of statements made by sexual assault victims with intellectual disorder".

The lower court determined that the victim’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case may be believed based on various circumstances.

When the Defendant asserts a strong fishing group’s confession, but in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the party branch, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

In particular, it is the following point.

A) After being examined by an investigative agency, the victim (class 2 of the intellectual disability) stated that “the defendant expressed the victim’s chest and sound (the victim’s chest) as stated in the facts charged of this case” several times. The victim’s statement, including 58-59 pages, 65-6 pages, 80 pages, etc. of the evidence record, is equipped with various requisitioned marks necessary to recognize the credibility of the victim’s statement with “sexual assault victim’s statement with a intellectual disability.” The victim made a statement based on the situation, regardless of the time order, and made a consistent statement about the content and circumstances of the damage of this case, and detailed information was also clearly expressed. The victim made a statement about the conversation with the Defendant divided, expressed his/her psychological condition, and made an ambiguous expression of the Defendant’s act. ② The victim’s statement was conducted in the video recordings (the video recordings was examined at the original trial, but it was a trial).