(b) Concealment of carcasses;

(c) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes;

(d) Relief and relief in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes;

(e) Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitually recognized crimes against the defendants: Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Child abuse);

(f) Child Welfare Violation (Habitual abandonment or neglect of a child);

2. (a) . (b) Ra, B

Law Firm DH (Attorney in charge, Attorneys DI and DJ) (Defendant B)

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

According to the records, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal. In such a case, the allegation that the lower court erred by mistake of facts as to the intention of murder does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, it is justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted Defendant B of both the charge of murder and the violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse) due to emotional abuse (excluding the part not guilty in the original trial) committed against Defendant B, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intention of joint processing in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as alleged in the ground of appeal by Defendant B, who did not regard it as the ground for appeal or ex officio.

In addition, considering various circumstances, including Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the crime, the determination of the lower court’s punishment sentenced to 17 years imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B cannot be deemed extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Lee Ki-taik