A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts only caused the victim to be removed from one another and kneeel kneel in the process of suppressing and sckeing the victim's fighting, and there was no fact that the victim D's bucket or did not go through buckbucks as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and when the victim E's scucks and spucks were involved. Nevertheless, the lower court found the victim's statement lacking credibility guilty of the facts charged in the instant case as evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the fact that the lower court sentenced to an unfair sentencing sentence (one year of imprisonment (one year of suspended sentence), 40 hours of the child abuse prevention lecture, and 40 hours of the community service order).

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the court below's finding the credibility of the statements made by the victimized children and finding the accused guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts alleged by the accused.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

The child victim E reported child abuse to 112, and the child victim D knew her mother of the fact of damage by telephone, and the above child abuse report contains the part that the defendant was at the time of the her blicker DNA and the victim E.

B. On the day of the instant case, the victimized children stated the specific speech by the Defendant at the time of the instant case, the response by the Defendant to the response by the victimized children, and the situation before and after the instant case. The above statements made by the victimized children are specific and detailed when they were described or indicated, inasmuch as they did not directly experience.