All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The gist of the grounds of appeal - the Defendant - misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, although the Defendant did not have committed sexual intercourse with the victim at the time of the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the statement

The prosecutor - The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

Judgment

In a case where a witness’s statement, including a victim of a judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exists any separate evidence to deem the credibility of the witness’s statement objectively in light of the facts charged. The mere fact that the witness’s statement is somewhat inconsistent 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 unreasonably deny the credibility of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). In light of the aforementioned legal principle, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant may be sufficiently convicted of the facts charged of this case:

The victim consistently stated in the police and the trial court that "the defendant forcedly had sexual intercourse with the victim, such as preventing the victim from harming him/her from standing in his/her house," and on the day of the instant case, G talking about the above facts of rape damage while getting out of the victim's house," and there is no circumstance that the victim made a false accusation or false statement.

L of child sexual assault experts who analyze the above statements of victims, the victim's intelligence has a boundary intelligence, consistency and unity as a whole, and the time and situation characteristics of the case have occurred are consistent with the context of the case.