However, each of the above cases against the defendants for two years from the date of the final conclusion of the judgment.

Defendants are the parents of the victimized child D(son, 7 years old) and the guardian of the injured child.

No person shall abandon a child under his/her protection and supervision, or neglect the basic protection, rearing, medical treatment and education, including food, clothing and shelter.

However, from January 1, 2018 to July 19, 2018, the Defendants left the house of the Defendants in the south of the South Sea E located in the south of South Korea, and left the house by piling waste so that they do not have any drums in the place inside the house while living with the victimized children, and opened the clothes and household goods in the school living room, and kept the clothes and household goods in person in the school, and the kitchen and cooling house have the upper limit of the period of distribution, the upper limit of the kitchen and cooling house, and he stored the malodor, thereby leaving the victimized children neglected at a low place without good sanitation.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to neglect the basic protection and rearing for children under protection and supervision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. A written request for investigation;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to family environment surveys;

1. Article 71 (1) 2 and Article 17 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Place of Punishment for the Crime, the applicable law and the selection of punishment for each of the children selected, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for the suspension of execution;

1. The Defendants, on the grounds of sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for the observation of protection and observation, failed to perform the basic duty to provide a clean environment as the parents of the victim, thereby neglecting the victim.

On the other hand, however, the Defendants are able to recognize, reflect and not repeat their errors.

Defendant

A has no special criminal history other than that subject to punishment once due to the crime of this kind, and Defendant B has no criminal history.

In addition to the criminal facts of the defendants, the basic duty of care seems to be fulfilled.

In addition, all the procedures of the instant trial, such as the age of the Defendants, the background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.