A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim C and D of all physical abuse as follows. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

1) As to the part against the victim C, the fact that the Defendant was able to see the damaged child’s view by hand is recognized. As such, the act of physical abuse by exercising a direct and physical tangible power on the face of the victimized child constitutes an act of physical abuse. 2) As to the part against the victim D, in light of L and the Defendant’s relationship, and the following circumstances, there is no reason for L to make a false statement, and the victimized child did not notify the parents of the fact that the victimized child was damaged.

In light of the fact that the witness's statement cannot be a ground for rejecting the credibility of the witness's statement, even if he/she was in the child care center or was in his/her presence at the child care center, etc., the credibility of L's statement can be sufficiently recognized, and therefore, the fact that the defendant committed physical abuse against the above victim can be sufficiently recognized.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 17 subparag. 3 of the former Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014) provides that “an act of abuse that causes bodily harm to a child” as one of prohibited acts. Here, “an act of bodily harm” refers to an act that causes a negative change to a child’s body to the extent corresponding thereto even if it does not reach the degree of “injury” due to the exercise of physical force against a child, thereby undermining the completeness of the body or hindering physiological function (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6781, May 12, 2016).