아동복지법위반(아동학대)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
Defendant
A does not pay the above fine.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant A) 1: Although the Defendant had contacted the victims with his/her appearance, hair, etc. in the meaning of a decoration, the degree of such contact did not reach the exercise of force or physical abuse.
B) Improper sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.
2) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: The Defendant, as the head of a child care center, has fulfilled his/her duty of care to prevent a school principal from committing child abuse to A.
B) Improper sentencing: The lower court’s sentence (2 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
In the trial of the party, the prosecutor added the name of the crime under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse to Defendant A, and changed the title No. 1-B, c, and d to the “Violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (Child Abuse Act)” as the “Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse (Child Welfare Workers, etc.)”, and applied Article 7 and Article 10(2)12 of the Act in addition to the “Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes” under the applicable law, the prosecutor requested the modification of the bill of amendment to the indictment. The court permitted this.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained due to changes in the subject of adjudication against Defendant A.
However, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.
3. Determination as to the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. Defendant A asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected it and found Defendant A guilty of each of the instant charges.
The court below's findings from the evidence duly admitted and investigated as follows.