2. Although the Defendant adopted the victimized child upon his/her own decision, the Defendant abused the victimized child continuously after the adoption, such as shouldering the victimized child, and inflicted injury on the victimized child who does not have exceeded 7,8 months after birth due to permanent disability. In fact, the victimized child due to the instant crime is likely to be unable to lead a normal life in the future by receiving a decision on the right-hand paralysis due to cerebral disability.

On the other hand, the defendant's perception of his mistake and reflects his depth, and the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse (Child Assault) seems to have been somewhat contingent with the defendant's prone state, and there is no criminal punishment among them, etc. can be considered favorable to the defendant.

In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive or circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is not deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too somewhat somewhat somewhat unfavorable or unreasonable to the Defendant, and the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.