The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant does not have sexual intercourse with the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the basis of the statement of the victim without credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (eight years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by clearly explaining the Defendant’s assertion and its decision in detail under the title of “judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the written judgment.

A thorough examination of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence, the judgment is just, and further, in addition to the grounds set by the court below, the records of the statement investigation conducted by the Gyeonggi-do Support Center, the records of the victim's statement recording CDs in the prosecutor's office, and the records of the examination of the victim's witness prepared at the court below, which are analyzed the victim's statement by direct interviewing the victim's statement. "O of the specialized examination commissioner of the court of the party which analyzed the victim's statement by means of direct interviewing the victim's statement includes a large number of information that is difficult to deem that the victim's statement was unique

The first accusation case was clearly distinguished between the instant case and the victim's memory, reply, and was able to speak separately by distinguishing the text and quality inserted, and the rape of another person was also distinguishable from the other person. Above all, these statements were consistent between the statements and statements.

Therefore, it is very low possibility that confusion with other cases could have been reported by mistake.

It is false that the mental age of the victim presumed to be the second to third grade of elementary school is dialogueed with the victim in this case due to the nature of the victim's cognitive ability.