Among them, the acquitted part on the violation of the Child Welfare Act due to the neglect of the victim B.

Therefore, since the portion of the judgment below's acquittal is separated and confirmed as it is, the above acquittal portion is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. As to Defendant 1’s violation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (hereinafter “instant research institute”), D (a) operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant research institute”) is merely a facility that recruits students with symptoms of excessive behavioral disorder (AD; hereinafter “AD”) and lives together in the state, thereby running an alternative school in the elementary school course.

B) With respect to the violation of the Child Welfare Act, the Defendant did not engage in the act of abuse as stated in the facts charged against the victimized children. 2) The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal principle (as to the violation of the Child Welfare Act), is an inevitable daily contact in the course of living with the victimized children in the community, or an act of education, taking into account the characteristics of children who have an emergency evacuation or ADH symptoms for protecting children, and constitutes a justifiable

3) In light of the statements made by the victim I of mistake of facts, etc., the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part even if it is found that the Defendant violated the Child Welfare Act against the victim I, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

2 The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the summary of this part of the facts charged is the alternative school.