The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) committed one indecent act against the victim C on or around 2014; (b) committed an indecent act against the said victim on or around July 2015, or did not rape the said victim on or around August 2015 (hereinafter “the part disputing the Defendant”) as stated in the facts charged; (c) accordingly, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the crimes committed on or around 2015. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant's wrongful sentencing reflects his fault in depth, the sentence of the court below against the defendant (the imprisonment for a maximum of seven years, the short of five years, and the order to complete sexual assault treatment programs at 300 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 23, 2016, at the time of the initial investigation into an investigative agency on September 23, 2016, the victim made a statement with a specific description of the situation at the time of the crime, the content of the crime, the verbal and behavior of the defendant, the situation of the house, etc. on the basis of the first statement. On April 14, 2017, the victim made a statement with the same content as the first statement even when the investigation for psychological analysis was conducted on April 14, 2017. The victim was present as a witness in the court of the trial and was only aware of the fact that he was present at several times, but the defendant was only a witness.

In the case of elementary school students, the lower court stated that he was raped by the Defendant.

As can be seen, the victim has consistently stated the facts of damage from the investigative agency to the trial court of the party, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part of the statement itself in light of the empirical rule. The victim's statement about the crime of 2015 is considered to be credibility, on the ground that the victim is naturally and naturally, without the perception that the victim is able to take care of the appearance, attitude, and statement in the trial court of the party, and there is no reason to believe that the victim is able to bear the risk of perjury and to see the risk of perjury, and there is no reason to believe the defendant.