The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The victim’s statements concerning the facts charged in the instant case are consistent since the investigative agency, and their credibility should be recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) the victim initially thought that the Defendant’s act indicated in the facts charged in the instant case was “the degree of distress as workplace rent”; (b) reported the Defendant after four days after the date on which the victim had committed the Defendant’s act; and (c) the victim stated that E had talked about the Defendant’s indecent act, but E had stated that such talk was not adequate, the lower court rejected the credibility of the victim’s statement and acquitted the Defendant.

B. 1) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court shall assess the credibility of the statement, taking into account all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance and attitude of the witness who is taking an oath before a judge, and the penance of the statement, and the fact that the statement made by the witness, including the victim, etc., is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, the court shall not reject the statement without permission, unless there is any other evidence that is objectively deemed to have been objectively reliable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In addition, the part of the statement made by the victim, etc., is consistent, in light of the empirical rule, and the statement made by the victim, etc., is not reasonable or reasonable.