아동복지법위반
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the part on August 26, 2015, shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that, under the current Child Welfare Act, even if a child’s physical force was exercised, but it did not reach physical damage, it should be deemed as an act of physical abuse. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s act of this case poses a risk of causing bodily harm to the
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor, while maintaining the facts charged in the instant case as the primary facts charged, the prosecutor first requested to modify the indictment with the content of “(c)(1) as the facts charged,” and the content of “(1) as stated in the following subparagraphs,” as the facts charged, as the name of the crime, “Assault” as the name of the crime, and “Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act,” respectively, as the applicable provisions of the law, and this court permitted this.
However, as examined below, this court maintained the conclusion of the court below that acquitted the Defendant on the primary facts. As such, the facts charged added in the preliminary charges became subject to the judgment of this court, and as seen below, as long as this court found the Defendant guilty on the remainder of the facts charged added in the preliminary charges except for the part concerning the act of August 26, 2015, as stated below, the court below that only the previous primary facts charged (the part of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged added in the preliminary charges) could no longer be maintained.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.
(b) mistake of facts by prosecutors;