However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant is the father and mother of victimized child B(n, 8 years of age).

On October 31, 2017, the Defendant: (a) moved victimized children to Busan from the head of the Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, to the neighboring elementary school; (b) did not send victimized children to the school from around the above time to February 1, 2018; and (c) was engaged in soup and soup in Busan-si, Mono-dong.

As a result, the defendant neglected the basic protection, rearing, medical care and education, including food, clothing and shelter for a child under his protection and supervision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Report on internal history (investigation into the content of the Nitged phone), content of release, interview with the contents of absence;

1. Reporting on the status of management students outside the prescribed number of absence due to long-term absence;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Interview with and recording of statements with victimized children B);

1. Article 71(1)2 and Article 17 subparag. 6 of the former Child Reinstatement Act (Amended by Act No. 14925, Oct. 24, 2017); Articles 71(1)2 and 17 subparag. 6 of the same Act regarding criminal facts; Articles 71 subparag. 2 and 17’s choice of imprisonment

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Articles 8(1) and 8(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Protection and Observation of Child Abuse by Order and the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse by Order to Attend [the scope of recommended punishment] No person who has no person [the person subject to special sentencing] in the basic field (six months to one year and six months) [the person subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] [the defendant] was not only committed not only because the defendant took the victimized child in the first grade of elementary school, was unable to take care of his house and receive normal education, but also because he was unable to take care of his room and lodging at a sobry after a soup and so on and without proper guidance.

On the other hand, the defendant reflects his wrong, and the victimized child is currently protected by the defendant and his parent and is living normally.

These circumstances and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime.