A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that acquitted a child of emotional abuse on the ground that the act of physical abuse and emotional abuse committed by misunderstanding the legal principles is not established separately when the act of physical abuse was committed.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the language and text of the above provisions, Article 17 of the Child Uniforms Land Act provides that “an act of abuse that causes damage to a child’s body” as prohibited against a child under subparagraph 3, and Article 5 provides that “an act of emotional abuse that causes damage to the child’s mental health and development” shall be deemed as “an act of emotional abuse that does not cause harm to the child’s mental health and development from among the acts of causing damage to the child’s body,” and the act under subparagraph 5 shall be deemed as “an act of emotional abuse that does not entail the exercise of tangible power, but does not amount to physical damage” (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6015, Oct. 13, 201). Thus, even in this case, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a typical act that causes damage to the child’s body, and there is no emotional abuse that does not have any other type of force.

Therefore, we cannot accept the prosecutor's assertion of law.

B. In light of the water law and contents, the criminal defendant was not only abused the victim several times, but also partially abused the body of clothes in the case of a certain act of abuse, and it is not very good to commit a crime in light of the water law and contents.

However, the defendant has no record of being punished in excess of the same crime or fine, and the victim is isolated from the defendant in the protection facility and lives again.