상해,아동복지법위반
2015No1889 Injury, Child Welfare Violation
A
Defendant
Before the prosecution (prosecution) and the two dynamics (public trial)
Attorney H
Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gohap31 Decided March 25, 2015
oly 10, 14
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;
(a) An injury;
Since a hole suffered by a victim does not harm the completeness of body or interfere with physiological functions, it cannot be viewed as an injury under the Criminal Act.
B. Violation of the Child Welfare Act
The defendant was merely engaged in the same conduct as the stated in the judgment of the court below in the intent to admonish the victim, and did not have any intention to injure the body of the victim or commit physical abuse.
2. Determination
(a) An injury;
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim suffered a total of five arms due to the defendant's act of the defendant for 26 months, and the victim continued to exist for at least seven days, and the victim appears to have expressed symptoms leading to the defendant's act of the defendant's act during night-time-time-time-time-time-time-time-time-time-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related-related
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. Violation of the Child Welfare Act
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant’s career, expertise of young children, the victim’s age, the number of injured bodies remaining in the victim’s arms, and the degree of injury, etc., the Defendant’s act of shouldering the two arms of the victim cannot be deemed as an exercise of right to receive punishment against the victim, and the Defendant’s intent to inflict bodily injury or engage in physical abuse can be sufficiently recognized.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
The number of judges assigned to the presiding judge;
Judges Kim Gung-sung
is a judge: