폭행치사등
The prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendants (e.g., imprisonment of four years for Defendant A; imprisonment of one year and six months for Defendant B; probation of three years for probation; probation of 120 hours for community service and 40 hours for treatment of domestic violence) are deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
2. The child of the motive for infant is dependent solely on the parents’ survival and safety because he/she is not capable of defending himself/herself or protecting himself/herself. Therefore, even if there is a need to protect the victim, the victim was born from the care center that originally entrusted with the victim to the care center around November 201 and raising him/her to the care center around November 201, and the victim was not able to blickly or to listen well to the horses during early February 201, the victim was flickly and flickly, and the victim was flickly flickly and flickly, and the victim did not go against the duty of care for the victim at the time of his/her death, and even the defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the victim's flick and flick, etc., and the victim was flickly and flickly damaged by the victim's flick at the time of his/her death.
On the other hand, the Defendants.