The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In determining the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency against a child victimized by sexual indecent act submitted as evidence, the child’s age should be examined by taking into account how much the child’s age is, how much the child’s age was, how much after the occurrence of the case, how much the child’s injury occurred, and how much the guardian or investigator who first heard the facts of the child’s injury occurred in the course of the occurrence of the case, and how much the child’s statement was made after the occurrence of the case, and how much the child’s statement was made after the occurrence of the case, and whether there was any possibility that the guardian or investigator who first heard the facts of the child’s injury would be modified into the child memory by providing the child with information not true, or inducing a specific answer through repeated newspapers, etc. at the time of the above statement, whether an ambiguous question that may be mistaken by the question at the time of the statement was not repeated, whether the child’s statement was affected by the interview, and what statement was made in court, and whether the content of the case’s statement contains more detailed and detailed descriptions as to the contents.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2520, Jul. 10, 2008). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where an adult who is a child and his/her mental or social age is determined the credibility of a statement made by an investigative agency and a court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2217, May 14, 2015; 2015Do334, Feb. 2, 2015).