Even if the investigative agency made a statement that the family had been sexually harassed and then overturned the statement that the court had no such fact, the Supreme Court's decision was made to acknowledge the credibility of the statement by the investigating agency once the specific circumstances of the statement were confirmed.

In the case of kinship sexual crimes, the intention is to take into account that the statements may be reversed or unclear due to family reunions or pressures, which may change the case in court.

Supreme Court Division 1 (Judge Chief Justice Sang-Hwan Kim) confirmed a centrifugal ruling sentenced to three years in jail in A's (45-year-old) 's trial pending charges of forcing her daughter on Wednesday (14th).

Mr. A was handed over to the court in 2014 for charges of forcing him three times, including touching her daughter's body (at the time, 10 years old).

At the trial, the investigative agency stated that the victim had been sexually assaulted, and in court, the issue of where to put the authenticity of the victim's statement, B, who overturned the statement that his father hated and lied.

Based on trial-centeredness and direct psychology, the Trial Tribunal judged the alleged sex-related charges innocent and sentenced to August in prison based on the victim's legal statements.

However, the judgment of the second-trial court was different.

The Trial Tribunal convicted the charges of sexual assault and sentenced him to three years in prison, stating that the victim's investigation statement was credible in light of its specific content and statement.

The Supreme Court also deemed that the second trial was correct.

An official of the Supreme Court said, "This ruling expressly judged that in the case of kinship sexual crimes, the victims are vulnerable to reversal of statements due to family recitation or pressure. "It is meaningful."