② 피고인이 훈계차원에서 피해자에게 1 차례 꿀밤을 때린 적은 있으나, 이는 사회 상규에 반하지 않는 정당행위로서 위법성이 없다.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and examined.

1) The victim made a concrete and consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of original instance regarding the Defendant’s act of injury, the transfer thereof, and the circumstances. In particular, the victim made a biological statement from the Defendant as to the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of blood transfusions and the chests, and the images of the victim’s chests are consistent with the victim’s above statement. Thus, each of the victim’s investigative agency and the court of original instance’s testimony at the investigative agency are credibility.

According to the statements, etc. of the victim, it is difficult to believe that the facts charged are sufficiently recognized, and the statements of C, the mother of the victim who conforms to the defendant's assertion, were witnessed at the time of C, or the divorce lawsuit was pending against F, the victim, while the defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with the victim.

2) Next, as indicated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the Defendant, the Defendant’s act of inflicting bodily injury on the victim as shown in the judgment of the court below constitutes a justifiable act, and ① the victim who is only ten years of age, was physically protected and nurtured with C at the time of committing the crime in this case, and ② The Defendant was actually protecting and fostering the victim together with C. However, if the victim who is a child was a guardian, it would be subject to physical pain only when it is inevitable considering the child’s interest first priority.