A. Error 1) The fact that A abused the victimized children, such as the facts charged, was insufficient to accurately memory the victimized children, and there was no fact that the victimized children had been raised a problem from the parents of the victimized children. Therefore, even though the Defendant had paid considerable attention, it was difficult to recognize A’s child abuse. 2) The Defendant continued to conduct child abuse prevention education, such as directly providing child abuse education to affiliated infant care teachers or having them receive education from other institutions during the period of work A.

In addition, the Defendant took measures to prevent child abuse by implementing monitoring between affiliated infant care teachers and creating CCTV monitoring week, maintained the ratio of child abuse teachers according to the standards for assignment of attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act, and fulfilled his/her duties, such as giving attention to A several times and taking care of A from time to time.

B. In so doing, the Defendant did not neglect the duty of management supervision to prevent child abuse.

Nevertheless, punishing the defendant is in violation of the legal principles on joint penal provisions.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, i.e., (i) the FF team A, mainly took charge of care of young children aged 2 and 3 who need the highest level of protection from among children, and (ii) the Defendant requires a high duty of care for the prevention of child abuse since it is comprehensively supervised and managed childcare activities as the operator of the child care center of this case. (iii) The act of abuse at issue in this case includes a number of physical abuse cases where it is relatively easily discovered, and was conducted over several times for a considerable period.