In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting each of the 100,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount of money equivalent to the above fine.

1. Defendant 1

At around 10:09 on February 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed emotional abuse against the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (age 3) who was seated on the ground that he did not hear his horses even though he was able to have a dispute over the child, and (b) caused the victim to the mental health and development of the child by taking the victim into his seat one time in his hand, and (c) led the victim to his seat, thereby detrimental to the mental health and development of the child.

2. Defendant 2 (Defendants):

On January 22, 2014, at the above ○○ Child Care Center on January 11:06, the Defendant: (a) committed emotional abuse that harms the mental health and development of the child, by promptly making the head of the victim Nonindicted 2 (age 4) who is a child one time with low punch, on the ground that the child does not listen to the horse in the course of preparation for re-harm at the above ○○ Child Care Center.

1. Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 2's partial statement);

1. Investigative report (ctv image attachment);

1. Each complaint;

1. Requests for cooperation in investigation affairs;

1. Written accusation, etc.;

1. Photographs;

[Defendant 2 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) and his defense counsel asserted that the act of the Defendant’s head of the victimized child by the cellphone block does not constitute “ emotional abusive acts that may harm the mental health and development of the victimized child” under Article 17 subparag. 5 of the Child Welfare Act. However, if the Defendant’s head of the victimized child, which is mere 28 months using the goods, has been in the 28th century, constitutes emotional abusive acts that may harm the mental health and development of the victimized child (Defendant 2 (Defendant 2: Defendant 2) and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the crime of this case was a legitimate act that was committed at the education train for the victimized child, but considering the background and degree of the assault, the part and degree of the assault, and the age of the victimized child, etc., the Defendant’s crime of this case cannot be deemed a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules).

Articles 71(1)2 and 17 subparag. 5 of the Child Welfare Act (Determination of fines for negligence - All the Defendants are primary offenders with no past criminal records, and their emotional abuse that does not reach physical abuse, etc.)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Ad hoc payment order:

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Lee Dong-do