The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Child Welfare Act among the charges of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s act of sending the victim’s sound and chest photographs to the victim’s cell phone who was only 13 years of age at the time and transmitted them over 269 times and actually similar to the victim’s act constitutes “an act of abuse, such as sexual harassment, etc. that causes a sense of sexual humiliation to a child,” stipulated in Article 17 subparag. 4 of the former Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Child Welfare Act”).

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the meaning and interpretation of “an act of abuse” under Article 17 subparag. 4 of the former Child Welfare Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.