The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) was as follows: (a) the Defendant conspired with one-time named, named, named, “B”, “C” and “D,” and (b) took place F, a missing child, without reporting to the police; and (c) the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, despite credibility of the statement made by the F, despite its credibility.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of the statements made by the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the credibility of the statements should be assessed in consideration of all the circumstances that make it difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including the appearance, attitude, and penology of the witness who is being sworn in the presence of a judge, and the penology of the witness who is making a statement in the open court after being sworn in the presence of a judge.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). Direct evidence that the Defendant strongly denies the entire facts charged is consistent with the facts charged on the record, and the victim’s statement is virtually flexible. The remainder of evidence is merely hearsay evidence based on the victim’s statement, etc., and in order to find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged solely based on the victim’s statement, the victim’s statement requires high probative value so as to have little doubt as to the authenticity and accuracy of the statement. In determining whether such probative value exists, the victim’s statement should be comprehensively taken into account not only the reasonableness, consistency, objective reasonableness, but also personal elements, such as the victim’s sexual character.

Therefore, it is judged that there is no evidence of the facts charged concerning the lack of credibility in some of the damaged facts stated by the victim, and further, the victim's statement in that part is made.