A. The misapprehension of the legal principle (not guilty part) of the defendant's act of failing to take dental care of B without any justifiable reason constitutes "act of neglect" prohibited by the Child Welfare Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (or four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, and order to attend a course) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the contents of each subparagraph of Article 17 and each subparagraph of Article 71(1) of the Child Welfare Act and the degree of punishment, etc., the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is an abuse that leads to the blocking of a child’s happy life without creating basic conditions such as the awareness and awareness that the child can enjoy a happy life, or the aid and support, and that it is an act that corresponds to abandonment or physical and emotional abuse. In so determining, the lower court was somewhat neglected in protecting and fostering B because the Defendant did not undergo dental treatment by taking account of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, on the premise that the act was an abuse that led to the blocking of a child’s happy life, such as the awareness and awareness that the child could enjoy a happy life, and that it was an abuse that

Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant's act has reached "abdomination" to the extent corresponding to that of abuse against B, and it was found not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that no other evidence exists to acknowledge it.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the relevant legal principles, closely and closely, the lower court’s determination is justifiable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Do1198, Oct. 17, 2019; Supreme Court Decision 201Do1198, Oct. 17, 2019).