아동복지법위반
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant A’s sentence (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) committed a duty of management and supervision by opening a teachers’ conference, etc. for the entire teachers of the child-care center of this case and installing CCTV to prevent child abuse. While Defendant B was unable to anticipate the abuse of this case, the lower court recognized the above Defendant’s violation of the Child Reinstatement Act, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Child Reinstatement Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Article 74 of the Child Uniforms Act provides that “If a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation or individual commits an offence under Article 71 in connection with the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions.
Provided, That this shall not apply where a corporation or an individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such violation.
“Determination” is set forth in the judgment.
The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, ① the teachers of the child-care center of this case, including I, J, and K, stated in the police that “no content was receiving education from Defendant B (related to this case)” at the police station of this case, and ② even if Defendant B argued, there was a fact that Defendant B emphasized that “at all times, children are loved with love” to teachers including A at the teachers meeting held one time a week in Pyeongtaek-si, as alleged by the court below.
However, the school teachers' meeting is held above.