아동복지법위반(아동학대)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, in light of the following: (a) the victim’s age was 17 years of age and was in attendance at a prestigious high school; (b) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was residing in China; (c) the Defendant’s age difference was 4 years of age; (d) the Defendant and the victim’s age difference was 4 years of age; (d) the Defendant and the victim were dialogueed only through resting with the Defendant and the victim; and (e) the details of the conversation was a minor difficult degree; and (e) the actual victim did not have committed the Defendant’s act, among the facts charged in the instant case, the part of the violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (child abuse) cannot be deemed to constitute “child abuse.”
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles.
B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of sexual abuse under the Child Welfare Act provides that “The child’s interest in all activities related to a child should be considered as a top priority” under Article 2(3) of the Child Welfare Act, and provides the basic ideology thereof.
Meanwhile, Article 3 Subparag. 7 of the same Act provides, “Any adult, including a child’s guardian, shall not engage in any sexual abuse, such as sexual harassment, which causes a sense of sexual humiliation to a child, or which may injure the child’s health and welfare or impede the normal development of the child, and where the child’s protector abandons or abandons the child.” Article 17 Subparag. 2 of the same Act provides, “Any person shall not engage in any sexual abuse, such as sexual harassment, which causes a sense of sexual humiliation to a child.”
In full view of the above legislative purpose, basic ideology, and related provisions of the Child Welfare Act, it is prohibited by the Child Welfare Act.