All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The police protocol of the victim C (the name, the 15-year old-old) by the victim C (the name, the 15-year-old) on admissibility of evidence is not admissible as evidence because it was not presented as a witness to the victim. Nevertheless, the court below that recognized admissibility of evidence and considered it as evidence of the facts charged in this case erred by misapprehending the legal principles on admissibility of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Although there was a sexual intercourse with the victim, there was no assault or intimidation

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the basis of the statements of the victim without credibility. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant did not agree to the evidence in the lower court regarding the written statement statement by the police of the victim C regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and it was not recognized that the written statement was authentic by the statement at the date of trial by the person making the original statement. Therefore, this cannot be admitted

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence, as the lower court adopted and examined “A police statement” as evidence, and indicated the above evidence together with the summary of the evidence in conviction.

However, except the above evidence that is not admissible as evidence, the remaining evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, such as the victim C’s statement in the video CD (Evidence Record No. 220-1) is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below’s above error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed for this reason.

Supreme Court Decision 98Do288 delivered on December 23, 1998