아동복지법위반(아동유기ㆍ방임)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the facts charged that the mother of the defendant neglected the basic protection, rearing, medical treatment, and education of pro-child B may be acknowledged.
However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the following grounds that it is difficult to view that the instant facts charged were proven without reasonable doubt.
(1) Article 17 subparag. 6 of the Child Welfare Act prohibits a child under protection and supervision of the child, or neglecting to provide basic protection, rearing, medical treatment, and education, including food, clothing, and shelter, pursuant to Article 71(1)2 of the same Act. However, Article 3 subparag. 7 of the Child Welfare Act defines “the abandonment or neglect of a child by his/her protector” as “the abandonment or neglect of a child by his/her protector, including his/her guardian, of a physical, mental, or sexual violence, or cruel acts that may undermine the health or welfare of the child or impede normal development of the child” as “child abuse.” In addition, Article 71(1)2 of the Child Welfare Act defines “the abandonment or neglect of a child by an adult including his/her guardian” as “the act of physical, mental, or sexual violence or cruel acts that may injure the child’s physical health and development (Article 17 subparag. 3 of the same Act), and the act of emotional abuse that may injure the child’s mental health and development (Article 17 subparag. 500, 500 million won or less.
In full view of the fact that the act of neglect was committed as one of the child abuse and was punished equally as the act of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, it is one of the child abuse committed by the Child Welfare Act.