A. The facts charged of injury found guilty by the court below are not specified in the method of crime and does not meet the requirements for prosecution, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the injury suffered by the victim was proven due to the defendant's assault, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or erroneous determination of facts.

B. A prosecutor 1) The fact that the victim was exposed to the repeated violence of the defendant for a considerable period of time can be acknowledged in light of the external wounds, etc. with different time differences, and the victim may be presumed to have been the cause of exercising the external force of the defendant since the victim was in a sudden state around 20:00 on April 22, 2019. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (Habitual Injury) and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (serious Bodily Injury to Children) on the grounds that there is an error of mistake of facts. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months

2. Determination

A. The court below also asserted the same facts as the grounds for appeal in the judgment of the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and on this point, the court below held that since the purpose of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant's right to defense, it is sufficient to state the facts constituting the elements of the indictment in a way that can be recognizable from other facts, and if general indication is inevitable in light of the nature of the crime charged and there is no hindrance to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, the contents of the indictment can be deemed to have been specified.