B. Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (child abuse);

Heavy injury)

(c) Injury;

(d) Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual abandonment or neglect of a child);

E. Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Child Abuse)

2. country B;

Attorney Lee Dong-young (Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant B)

1. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the court below's judgment on July 7, 2016, on the grounds of the same reasons as the judgment in its holding.

27. From around August 31, 2016 to around August 31, 2016, the first instance judgment which rendered a judgment of not guilty of the reason on the ground that there was no proof of the crime against the violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual abandonment or neglect of a child) was maintained as it is. In light of the record, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the habitual abandonment or neglect of a child committed by violating the Child Welfare Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor appealed against Defendant B, among the judgment of the court of first instance, as to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below. However, there is no description of the grounds for appeal and there is no description of the grounds for appeal, even in the statement of grounds for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning for Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by Defendant A’s reasoning of the original judgment, it is reasonable to determine that the instant indictment against Defendant A was committed on July 28, 2016 and August 2, 2016, and both of the injury and child welfare law (child abuse) and attempted murder are found guilty on the grounds as stated in the judgment of the lower court. It is reasonable to have determined that Defendant A’s appeal is recognized as guilty. There is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on willful negligence in the attempt to murder, etc., by violating the logic and experience legal rules, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Considering the following circumstances: Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, intelligence, and environment; relationship with the victim; motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime; and the circumstances after the instant crime was committed, it cannot be deemed that the amount of punishment of the lower court that sentenced Defendant A to 18 years imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A is extremely unfair even in light of the circumstances in which Defendant A and the Korean defense counsel asserted.

3. Examining the reasoning of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by Defendant B’s reasoning of the original judgment, the violation of the Child Welfare Act among the facts charged against Defendant B in the instant indictment against Defendant B on the grounds as indicated in the lower judgment (Habitual abandonment and neglect of a child)

It is reasonable to determine that both the points of the charge (excluding the part of innocence above), violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse (Child Abuse Bodily Injury) are to be recognized as guilty. There is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on ‘the possibility of' and ‘the relation with a child abuse' as a result of violating the logical and empirical rules, such as the allegation of the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa