A. The act of misunderstanding A’s misunderstanding of fact is merely a child who is so detached, and does not constitute emotional abuse prohibited by the Child Welfare Act.

The defendant, as the head of a child care center, provided education on the prevention of child abuse against A, who is a child care teacher, and supervised it.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding (1) Article 17 of the Act on the Place of Child Uniforms provides that “an emotional abusive acts that may injure the mental health and development of a child” as prohibited against a child. This refers to the emotional abusive acts or tangible force not accompanied by the exercise of tangible power, but does not reach physical damage. It includes not only cases where such acts interfere with the mental health and normal development of a child but also cases where there is a risk or possibility of causing such a result. It does not necessarily mean that the purpose or intent of emotional abusive acts against a child is not recognized, but it is enough to find out that there is a risk or possibility of undermining the mental health and development of a child’s own act, and it is sufficient that the court below properly adopted and investigated the following circumstances by evidence to find out that there is no need to communicate with a child to the victim, i.e., a mature infant care teacher, who is more than the victim’s 20 years ago.