Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to provide basic education, such as not leaving a victimized child to school or allowing him/her to leave from school, and failing to provide a special education within home, on the ground that the victimized child does not come up with his/her school hours due to the fact that the victimized child from March 6, 2018 to May 3, 2018 does not drop up until late night.

Accordingly, the defendant neglected the education of victimized children under his protection and supervision.

Maz.

1. Article 17 Subparag. 2 of the Child Uniforms Act lists the “act of neglect of education for a child under his/her protection and supervision” as one of the acts of physical abuse and emotional abuse, and as one of the prohibited acts against a child. Article 71(1)2 of the same Act provides a penal provision against a person who committed physical abuse or emotional abuse and a person who neglects a child.

2. In full view of the legislative purpose and basic ideology of the Child Welfare Act, the legislative system, etc. of the Child Welfare Act, which provides that the act of physical and emotional abuse and the act of neglect shall be punished as the same statutory penalty, “act of neglect” means an act equivalent to physical and emotional abuse, such as failure to provide a minimum level of educational opportunity for a child to enjoy happy life due to such an act among acts that may impair the child’s welfare, etc. (see Constitutional Court Decisions 2015HunBa264, Mar. 31, 2016; 2012 Gohap149, Jun. 13, 2013; 2013Do1497, Feb. 27, 2014); and such an act of neglect is a crime of omission.