However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is a father of a victimized child B (C) with intellectual disability I.

No person shall commit any physical abuse against a child that may injure his/her body or injure his/her physical health and development.

On May 1, 2018, from around 22:00 to around 23:00 on the same day, the Defendant sustained injury, such as hump transfusion, etc. in the family of the Defendant located in Cheongju-si D and E, on the ground that the victimized child was kidd, and on the ground that the victimized child was kiddd, the Defendant continued to perform the head of the victimized child on the hand floor and stroke, on the ground that the victimized child was kid, and caused injury to the victimized child

As a result, the Defendant committed physical abuse against children, which may injure their physical health and development.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. On-site report (as to the on-site situation)

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to recording notes;

1. Article 71 (1) 2 of the Child Welfare Act and Article 17 subparagraph 3 of the Child Welfare Act, the choice of punishment for an offense, and the choice of imprisonment with labor;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In full view of the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, details and motive of the crime, method and seriousness of the crime, the degree of disadvantage and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to the employment restriction order, the preventive effect and effect of the crime that may be achieved therefrom, the victim protection effect, etc. of the child-related institution pursuant to the proviso to Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act, it is determined that there is a special reason for not issuing an employment restriction order to the child-related institution, and thus, the Defendant is not subject to an employment restriction order.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant recognized the crime and misunderstanding is divided, there is no other criminal punishment in addition to the punishment of a fine once for a minor crime, and the defendant has continuously abused the child.