However, in full view of the motive, circumstance, etc. of the above act, it is only an act to admonish the victim, not an act of abuse, and there was no intention of abuse against the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The term “child abuse” in the relevant legal doctrine refers to an adult, including a guardian, who does harm to a child’s health or welfare or commits physical or mental violence or cruel acts that may impede the normal development of a child (Article 3 subparag. 7 of the Child Uniforms Act). Since the protection of a child’s legal interest is “child’s health and welfare,” and the subject of protection is “a person under 18 years of age,” the concept of child abuse under the Child Welfare Act needs to be interpreted more broadly than the concept of abuse under the Criminal Act.

In addition, “ emotional abuse” refers to an act of emotional abuse or tangible power not accompanied by the exercise of tangible force, but does not reach physical damage, and does not necessarily require the purpose or intent of emotional abuse against a child. It is sufficient to do so with the recognition of the risk or possibility of undermining the mental health and development of a child’s own act.

The “ emotional abuse” under Article 17 subparag. 5 of the Child Uniforms Act includes not only cases where it has interfered with the mental health and normal development of a child but also cases where there is a risk or possibility of causing such a result.

In addition, the legislative purpose and basic ideology of the child welfare law, the characteristics of emotional abuse that may exert a fatal influence on the development of children's personality when continued for a long time, and the type of abuse, and the legislative system of the child welfare law, which stipulates that the act of physical emotional abuse and abandonment and neglect shall be punished by the same statutory penalty.