(a) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes;

(b) Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual child abuse);

(c) Child Welfare Violation (Habitual abandonment or neglect of a child);

(d) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(e) Confinement; and

(f) Violation of the Child Welfare Act;

2.(a)(c)(d)(f)(B);

Attorney Jeong Sung-won

Attorney So-young (the national election for the defendant B)

Judgment

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for seven years and by imprisonment for four years.

Defendants order the completion of each child abuse treatment program for 40 hours.

The Defendants shall order each child-related institution to restrict employment (including the prohibition of operation and the provision of actual labor) for five years.

A. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) With respect to the violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual abandonment or neglect of children), among the cases of the lower court 2020Gohap17, the Defendant did not neglect the basic protection of the victim by failing to provide meals to the victim.

B) With respect to the case of the lower judgment 2020 Gohap27, the Defendant did not have to have the victims observe the crime of abuse, and there was no intention of emotional abuse against the victims.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below against the defendant (six years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

(1) misunderstanding of facts

With respect to the crime of violation of the Child Abuse Punishment Act (Habitual Special Bodily Injury), as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not clad the victim with the melted net container and suped supled suped suped supper, as shown in the judgment of the court below (1) No. 6,8 as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the lower court against the accused (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

(c) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Although Defendant B could not be deemed to have been in a state of mental disability due to editing and modernization at the time of each of the instant crimes, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and erroneous determination.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts

A. Defendant A

1) Regarding the violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual abandonment or neglect of children) among the cases of the lower court 2020 Gohap17

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the defendant committed an act of neglecting the basic protection of the victim by not providing proper meals to the victim under his/her protection and supervision in collaboration with B, and the statement of the witness B of the court below does not interfere with this.

The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged did not err by mistake of facts, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion to this purport

A) When the victim lives in a laundry room of the first floor at an investigative agency, he was frighting and frighting from the side of the other family while the other family was eating, his family was frighting back after the meal was completed (Evidence 17, 1679, 1680). The victim made a meal in front of or in the laundry room (Evidence 17, 2020, 177, 1680), "If he was frighting away from the second floor of the floor, he was frighting in the laund of vinyl, he was frighting in the laund, and he was frighting in the laundry room, and he was frighting in the laundry room and laundry room. The victim did not make a specific statement to the effect that he did not make a statement to the effect that he did not have any other part of his own laundry, including 200, 30,000.

B) In the visit investigation of the victim’s birth, ○○○○○○, which had been living together with the victim, made a statement to the effect that “the victim was boomed and boomed at a normal place as soon as possible,” and that “the defendant and B met with the victim’s statement (Evidence No. 489 pages).” After the victim escaped from his house, the victim was found to have been frightly discovered and rescued the victim, and the victim complained of the pain, i.e., “if he was Schlage,” and she was frighted to drinking at nearby convenience. However, the victim stated that “the victim was frightened as thirster (Evidence No. 293, 294 pages).” Furthermore, the victim’s statement to the effect that “the victim was found to have been frighted by the victim’s cell phone excluding the victim’s children’s oral evidence, it is also consistent with the contents of the victim’s statement at the time when the victim was discovered.

C) The Defendant asserts to the effect that he was not involved in the crime of this part as he was in full charge of the victim’s meal preparation. However, the Defendant asserts that he did not take part in the crime of this part. However, given that he was married with the victim’s mother B, the Defendant had a duty to protect the victim as his father, who was under his protection and supervision, from the end of January 2020 to May 21, 2020, sent most of the time to his family for most hours since he did not work with his family. At the time, the victim did not drink with his family members or was isolated from his second floor to the second floor, and the Defendant did not have any other duty to protect the victim, even if he did not have any other duty to protect the victim, even though he did not have any other duty to protect the victim, he did not have any other duty to protect the victim from the point of view that he did not have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been her own.

2) Regarding the case of the lower court 2020 Gohap27 [the point of violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse)]

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 17 of the former Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014) provides that "an act of emotional abuse that causes damage to a child's body" under subparagraph 3 due to a child's prohibited act, and separately provides that "an act of emotional abuse that causes harm to the mental health and development of a child" under subparagraph 5 is prohibited from presenting an act that does not harm the mental health and development of a child among the acts that injure a child's body. In light of the language and text of each of the above provisions, an act of subparagraph 5 is an act of emotional abuse that does not entail the exercise of tangible power but does not result in physical harm. Here, "an act of emotional abuse that causes harm to the mental health and development of a child" includes not only cases where it actually impedes the mental health and normal development of a child, but also cases where it is likely that such act may cause harm or harm to a child's mental health and development, and it is sufficient that the mental health and development of a child is not recognized by 1315 years or 20.

B) Specific determination

Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant committed emotional abusive acts that may harm the mental health and development of the victims, such as this part of the charges, while recognizing the risk or possibility of impeding the mental health and development of the victims due to dolusent acts. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

① The Defendant: (a) the head of the ○○○ was able to show the entrance to the outside of the license and corrected the entrance; (b) the head of the ○○ was hacks with the hacks set up the other end of the hacks connected to the tap water of the living room; and (c) the head of the hacks and hacks with the hacks by making use of the hacks and hacks. The head of the hacks recognized that the Defendant and the victims used assault or inflict bodily injury. The place where the above hacks all were living together in the dwelling where the Defendant and the victims were living together, which the victims could easily see; and (c) the victims could have easily witness the Defendant’s crime of abuse.

② 이 사건에 관한 조사가 시작되었을 당시 장○은의 양 눈에는 시퍼런 멍이 들어 있고, 팔과 다리에는 학대로 인한 표재성 상흔이 있었다. 피해자 장이온은 경찰 조사 당시 '엄마와 아빠가 큰 언니를 때려 큰 언니의 눈, 손, 몸, 다리랑 엉덩이에 멍이 들어 있었다(2020고합27 증거기록3) 42, 43, 45면)', '나무 맴매는 위에는 포크처럼 생겼는데 뾰족하지는 않고 길며 등을 긁을 수도 있다)(증거기록 43면)', '철 맴매는 까만색이고 좀 구겨졌는데 길다)(증거기록 45면)'라고 진술하였고, 아동보호기관의 방문조사 당시에도 '장○은이 화장실에서 생활을 하다가 2층에서 생활을 하였다', '장○은이 화장실이나 2층에 있을 때는 목줄에 묶여 있었다', '장○은은 무지개색이 위에 있고 네모난 것이 아래에 있는 것에 묶여 있었다) (증거기록 146면)'라고 진술하였다. 피해자 박○우도 아동보호기관의 방문조사에서 '피고인과 B가 장은을 때린 것을 많이 봤다'라고 진술하였다(증거기록 162면, 박우는 저연령으로 더 구체적인 진술은 하지 못한 것으로 보인다).

③ 장○은도 검찰 조사 당시, '나무주걱으로 엄마와 아빠에게 맞았는데, 아빠가 나무 주거의 끝을 테이프로 감아서 동생들이 나를 때리게 놔뒀다. 시온이와 시우가 엄마 아빠가 때리는 것을 보고 배워서 "거짓말하지 마! 엄마, 아빠 잘 들어!"라고 하면서 나를 때렸다(증거기록 358, 365면)', '내가 테라스에 갇혀 있을 때 피해자들은 그 앞 다락방에서 장난감을 가지고 놀고 있었고, 내가 문을 열어 달라고 하면 동생들이 문을 열어 주었다(증거기록 466면)', '아빠가 엄마에게 후라이팬에 불 켜놓으라고 시켜서 엄마가 가스레인지에 불을 붙였고, 그 다음에 엄마는 소파에 앉아서 시아를 보면서 다른 동생들 2명과 같이 놀고 있었으며, 나는 아빠에게 끌려가 손이 지져졌다(증거기록 483, 484면)'라고 하여, 동생들인 피해자들이 자신에 대한 학대 범행 장면을 지켜보고 있었다는 취지로 진술하였다.

④ 피고인의 위와 같은 학대 범행은 성인이 지켜보기에도 참혹할 정도였을 것으로 보이고, 인격이 완전히 형성되지 않은 어린 아동인 피해자들은 이와 같은 폭력행위에 노출됨으로써 향후 성장 과정에서 상당한 부정적인 영향을 받을 가능성이 있다. 피해자들은 아동보호기관의 방문 조사 당시 조사관으로부터 장○은이 학대를 당할 때 어떤 감정이 들었느냐는 질문을 받았는데, 피해자 장○온은 '엄마, 아빠가 장○은을 때릴 때 장〇은이 투명해지면서 사라지는 느낌이 들었다’, ‘마음이 아프고 무서운 마음이 들지만 울지는 않았다(증거기록 145면)’라고 진술하였고, 피해자 박〇우도 ‘마음이 아팠다 (증거기록 148면)'라고 진술하였으므로, 위와 같은 학대 범행을 지켜보면서 상당한 심리적 충격을 받았던 것으로 보인다.

⑤ Therefore, considering the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, had the victims witness the abuse crime, that the defendant committed "the emotional abuse that may harm the mental health and welfare of a child or hinder the normal development of the child" prohibited under the Child Welfare Act, and even though the defendant did not have a conclusive purpose or intent to commit emotional abuse to the victims, as long as the defendant had had the victims witness the abuse process, it is difficult to view that the defendant was aware of the risk or possibility of undermining the mental health and development of the victims due to his own act, unless the defendant had the victims witness the abuse process.

B. Defendant B

The Defendant also asserted as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by taking into account the circumstances acknowledged as a whole by the evidence in its judgment, i.e., the victim’s related statements are specific and consistent, and the victim’s body remains in common. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is sufficiently acceptable, and there was no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

1) As to the part of the crime sight table (1) No. 6 per annum (the part of the charge that the defendant puts pictures into the victim's floor due to the salted sled sled by the defendant) as indicated in the judgment of the court below

피해자는 경찰 조사에서, 이 부분 피해 경위에 관하여, '엄마가 겨울에 가스레인지를 켠 후 젓가락을 하나 꺼내서 불에 달구었고, 무릎을 꿇으라고 해서 시키는 대로 했더니 뜨거운 젓가락으로 발바닥을 지졌다(증거기록 95, 96면)'라고 진술하였고, 범행 이후 피고인이 취한 행동에 관하여, '발에 물집이 생기자 엄마가 바늘로 물집에 구멍을 낸 후 물을 짜서 치료해 주었다(증거기록 96, 97면)'라고 진술하였으며, 검찰 조사에서는 더 상세하게, '엄마가 무릎을 꿇고 앉아 있는 나의 한쪽 발을 손으로 잡아들었고, 나는 발을 팍 빼 가지고 아빠다리로 앉았는데, 엄마가 발을 들어서 젓가락으로 지졌다(증거기록 1519, 1520면)'라고 진술하였다. 피해자의 진술은 피고인의 범행방법, 범행 당시 자신이 취했던 자세, 범행 이후 피고인이 피해자의 상해를 처리한 방법 등에 관하여 아동인 피해자가 실제로 경험하지 아니하면 진술할 수 없는 부분을 다수 포함하고 있고, 피해자는 반복된 조사에도 불구하고 일관성을 유지하며 구체적으로 피해 사실을 진술하였으므로 그 진술내용의 신빙성이 높다. 피해자의 발 부분에는 얇고 긴 화상자국이 발견되는바(증거기록 629면), 피해자의 진술내용은 객관적 증거와도 부합한다.

2) On the part 8 of the crime sight table (1) per annum as indicated in the judgment of the court below (the part concerning the charge that the defendant puts a fake image on both sides of the victim and a fake image on the part of the victim)

A) The victim stated in the police investigation that, with respect to the background of the damage and the situation before and after the victim suffered from the damage, 's glusium changed to glusium, brought about glusium in glusium, glusium glusium, and glusium glusium glusium glusium, and glusium glusium glusium glusium glusium glusium glusium glusium glusium glusium glusium (Evidence No. 910, 911 of the evidence record) after the completion of the crime. In the prosecution investigation, the victim did not first glusium glus that glus would enter

그런데 엄마가 글루건으로 뭐 붙일 게 있다고 거짓말을 하여 아빠가 엄마에게 글루건을 줬고, 엄마는 아빠가 출장을 가고 없는 사이에 갑자기 나를 불러 발에 글루건을 짰다(증거기록 1513, 1514면)', '엄마가 청소를 빨리 안 한다고 하면서 부엌에서 파란색 글루건을 짰다(증거기록 1506, 1507면)', '배에도 세 번이나 짰다(증거기록 1508면)'라는 취지로 진술하였다. 이와 같이 피해자의 진술은 범행경위와 범행 전후의 내용을 자세히 포함하고 있어 아동인 피해자가 이 부분 진술을 거짓으로 꾸며내기란 쉽지 않을 것으로 보이고, 반복된 조사에도 불구하고 자신이 입은 피해를 구체적이고 일관되게 진술하여 신빙성이 높다.

B) The victim's appearance has several images who appear to have been suffered due to the depression of heavy liquid (Evidence Nos. 628), and three video-based stations that seem to have been made to flown with heavy liquid on the part of the victim (Additional Evidence Nos. 4). As seen above, the victim's appearance was seized (Evidence Nos. 218 of the Evidence Nos. 218 of the Evidence Nos. 218 of the Record), and the objective evidence also conforms to the victim's statement.

C) At the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant also made a statement that he had a glue in A’s room in order to record the glue of the front galm (Evidence Nos. 1419), and that he did not have a glue of the victim’s glue into the victim’s glue of glue, so the Defendant made a statement that he had a glue of the victim’s glue using an glue glue (Evidence Nos. 1418, 1421 of the Evidence Nos. 141 of the Evidence No. 141).

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The lower court determined that comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) Defendant B went home at around three times; (b) Defendant B died during the sixth-year elementary school; (c) Defendant B showed symptoms at the time of middle school students; and (d) Defendant B showed symptoms at the school from around 2015; (b) was diagnosed by the effication due to symptoms, such as Cheongbu, the damage net, and related network; (c) Defendant B was diagnosed on September 22, 2016 through 47 occasions from September 22, 2016 to March 28, 2019; and (d) Defendant B was aware of the symptoms and symptoms at the time of this case’s occurrence of an attack on the victim’s mental or physical harm without editing or editing, and (d) Defendant B was aware of the symptoms and symptoms at the time of this case’s occurrence of mental or physical harm to Defendant B’s national hospital at the time of this case’s death.

Examining the above circumstances presented by the court below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is sufficiently acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor. The prosecutor's above assertion is rejected

4. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor

피고인 A의 경우, 조현병을 앓고 있는 아내와 여러 자녀들을 부양하는 가장으로서 가족들의 생계를 책임지고 있었는데, 2020. 1.경부터 확산된 코로나바이러스 등으로 갑자기 일감이 없어지게 되자 경제적으로 압박을 받고, 그로 인하여 발생하거나 심화된 가정 내 갈등이 이 사건 각 범행의 원인(遠因)이 되었을 것으로 보이는 점, 지인들이 선처를 탄원하고 있는 점, 동종 범죄전력이 없는 점 등은 유리한 정상으로 참작된다.

In the case of Defendant B, the primary offender with no criminal power, the Defendant’s own care in a family environment with a fluorial age and experience in not being properly protected by his parents, and attempted suicide. Accordingly, the Defendant got out of school and attempted suicide. After becoming an adult, he was given treatment after receiving a diagnosis of editing disease, and attempted to use medicine after taking account of the influence that the baby was pregnant, and then, the Defendant discontinued use of medicine and medicine. At that time, it was difficult to go out of school due to the spread of the child, and the mental illness aggravated by raising four children, resulting in economic difficulties, and thereby committing each of the crimes of this case in a state of mental and physical disability shall be considered as normal circumstances.

However, the crime of child abuse only causes physical and mental harm to a child who has no ability to protect himself/herself by unilaterally causing harm to his/her own child, and it is highly likely that the victimized child was abused without being properly protected by his/her own parents in the future growth process with his/her memory difficult to be left, and may cause the cause of juvenile delinquency or abuse to be caused. In particular, child abuse crimes should be severely punished, considering the fact that the child is a member of a sound society is an essential condition to form a healthy society, and children need to be specially protected, and it is also the reason why the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Welfare and Child Abuse Crimes was enacted. Considering the need to prevent child abuse crimes that are recently increasing in our society, child abuse crimes should be severely punished.

Defendant B is the victim’s friendly mother, and Defendant A is not a friendly father, but the victim’s head was believed to be friendly by the victim’s head. Although the victim’s head had an absolute obligation to protect the victim’s head and to rear the Defendant healthy, the victim’s head, who is merely the victim’s 10 years old age, did not have any such obligation, and exercised violence to the extent that it is difficult for the victim head to see adult scam. The victim’s head of the victim’s body with various dangerous objects, was fluent with the victim’s head’s body, was fluent pan or spoched, etc., and was flued by inserting the head of the brush with the water. Even if so, the Defendants did not provide adequate meals by having other family members provide meals separately.

Due to the abuse of these Defendants, the victim head of the victim ○ was suffering from harsh injuries, such as breath, the breath, the bones of the bones, the halth, the halth, the halth, the teared, the halth of the halth of the halth, the halth of the halth of the halth, the halth of the halth of the halth, the halth of the halth of the halth of the halth, the halth of the halth of the halth of the halth of the halth, the halth of the halth of the halth of the halth, the halth of the halth of the halth of the halth of the halth, the halth of the halth of the halth of the halth of the hal.

As above, the Defendants committed another abusive act that had ○○○ and Park ○-woo, who is a child of another her child without any awareness, witness the above abusive act. The Defendants committed another abusive act, i.e., the victim’s head, ○○, and Park ○○, and the victim’s head, i.e., “the victim’s head, ○, and Park ○,” and the victim’s head, i.e., “the victim’s head, ○,” i., “the victim’s head, ○, and Park ○,” i.e., “the victim’s head, ○, and Park ○,” i.e., “the victim’s head, ○, and Park ○,” but without any awareness. It cannot be readily concluded that the mental suffering of the victim’s head, ○, and Park ○ was easily cured.

Defendant A denied most of the crimes in an investigative agency, and following the original trial, Defendant A made a vindication that it is difficult to understand while denying some of the crimes. Defendant B also denies some clearly recognized crimes, and the victim head of the victim ○ was aware of criminal responsibility to be caused by her and her husband. In light of the attitude of the Defendants, it is doubtful that the Defendants are against the truth and her will to commit the crime against the victim ○○.

It is difficult to expect that the Defendants were unable to receive a letter from the victims, and that they could recover from the victims' damages in the future.

In full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, and environment; (b) motive and background leading to each of the instant crimes; (c) the means and method of committing the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit, and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is with merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged by this court and the evidence related thereto are as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below (8), except where the "scopic plastic machine" in the annexed list (4) of the judgment of the court below is "scopic machine" as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to the facts constituting the crime and the choice of punishment (defendants);

Articles 6 and 2 subparag. 4 (a) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes, Articles 258-2 (1), 257 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the cases of habitual special injury), Articles 72, 71 (1) 2, and 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act (including the cases of habitual child abuse), Articles 72, 71 (1) 2, and 17 subparag. 6 of the Child Welfare Act, Article 2(2)2 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Violences, Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 71(1)2, and Article 17 subparag. 5 of the Child Welfare Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including emotional abuse) of each Child Welfare Act.

1. Formal concurrence (defendants);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act / [Punishments prescribed in the Child Welfare Act (Habitual Child Abuse) and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Joint Confinement), each of the crimes under confinement, and each of the crimes under the Child Welfare Act (Habitual Child Abuse) with heavier punishment] Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of a sentence;

Each of the Child Welfare Act(Habitual child abuse), each of the Child Welfare Act(Habitual abandonment or neglect of a child), each of the Child Welfare Act(child abuse), and each of the Child Welfare Act(child abuse) shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Mitigation of mental disorders (Defendant B);

Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes, which is the largest penalty]

1. Order to complete a program;

Article 8(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes

1. An order to restrict employment (the defendants);

Article 2 of the Addenda to the Child Welfare Act (Act No. 17784, Dec. 29, 2020); the main sentence of Article 29-3(1) of each Child Welfare Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months from June to June 22;

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor from September to 11 March;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

The sentencing criteria are not applied because there is a crime in the commercial competition relationship.

3. Determination of sentence;

The sentence shall be determined as per the order, considering the various sentencing conditions examined in the above reasons for reversal.

Judges Lee Jin-dong

Completion of Judge

2) The above Supreme Court decision is related to Article 17 of the former Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014). However, Article 17 subparag. 5 of the current Child Welfare Act provides that "the above Article 17 subparag. 5 of the former Child Welfare Act is the same as Article 17 subparag. 5 of the former Child Welfare Act, and Article 17 subparag. 3 of the current Child Welfare Act provides that "the act of abuse that causes bodily harm to a child or physical harm to a child's health and development" is added to "the act of abuse that causes harm to a child's body", and the above legal principle of the Supreme Court decision is reasonable as it is in this case to which Article 17 of the current Child Welfare

3) The evidence records cited in paragraph 2.a.2 below are all the evidence records of the court below 2020 Gohap27 case, and the case number is omitted when citing the evidence records.

4) The Defendants appears to have expressed the shape and method of use of the filial children’s hand when they were used.

5) The Defendants appears to have expressed the shape of the Kabama which was used in the context of the Kabama.

6) The Defendants appears to have expressed the shape of locks used when they put the hacks and locks into toilets or second floor locks.

7) On the 8th page of the judgment below, the 1st page of the judgment below seems to be a clerical error in the 000s.

8) This part of the crime is based on the facts identical to the crime set forth in No. 9 of the crime sight table (1) of the judgment below. Defendant B bears all the criminal facts pertaining to the above crime. As such, even if the change was made ex officio, there is no possibility of undermining Defendant B’s exercise of the right of defense. Thus, this part of the criminal facts are modified ex officio and recognized.