A. Comprehensively taking account of the fact-misunderstanding or legal principles that a misunderstanding A was unable to predict that a child abuse was committed by the Defendant, and the finding of a crime through CCTV monitoring was an excessively excessive duty of care for the Defendant, and the Defendant faithfully implemented child abuse prevention programs against infant care teachers, the Defendant was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision for the prevention of child abuse.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty has erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to the pertinent business in order to prevent the violation.

(1) G child care centers operated by the accused are private child care centers specialized in infant care (pre-school children under the age of 18) in need of the most protection even among children subject to child abuse (pre-school children under the age of 6), and the operators are required to pay high attention to the de facto trust with the guardians who have entrusted infants and to prevent child abuse.

② In the instant case, the child abuse at issue was one of the most likely to have been discovered compared to other abuse, and even though A had repeated 12 or more times for about four months from March 2016 to June 2016, the Defendant did not discover the abuse once again.

The detection of A's child abuse is the last crime and by the report of the guardian of the victimized child after the occurrence of the crime, and is made through A's statement and CCTV images.