아동학대범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(아동복지시설종사자등의아동학대)등
[Defendant B, D, and E] The part of the lower judgment against Defendant B, D, and E is reversed.
Defendant
B Imprisonment with prison labor for a year;
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant B and D (i.e., one year of imprisonment, 80 hours of a child abuse treatment program, ii) imprisonment with labor for Defendant D: 10 months, and 80 hours of a child abuse treatment program is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendants A, B, C, and D (misunderstanding of the legal principle as to the portion of innocence) committed each of the offenses against the Defendants against the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse (the abuse of children by persons engaged in child welfare facilities, etc.) and the violation of the Child Uniforms Act (Habitual child abuse) constitute an ordinary concurrent offense, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principle by treating them as one of the offenses.
2) Defendant E (misunderstanding of facts) is the actual operator of G kindergarten as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”), and constitutes a person who commits multiple penal provisions stipulated in Article 74 of the Child Uniforms Branch Act, but the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the Defendant on the sole basis of the circumstances indicated in the judgment below.
2. Determination as to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on Defendant A, B, C, and D
A. Formal concurrence refers to a case where a single act substantially satisfies several constituent requirements. Legal concurrence refers to a case where a single act appears to meet the constituent requirements of several crimes, but actually constitutes only one crime. Whether a single crime is actually a single crime or several crimes should be determined by considering the constituent evaluation and the legal interests in terms of the constituent evaluation.
In addition, the special relationship, which is a form of a landscape agreement, is established where a requirement for the composition of a special law is established, other than all the elements of a different composition requirement, and the act that satisfies the requirements for the composition of a special law in a special relationship does not meet the requirements for the composition of a special law, on the contrary, although it satisfies the requirements for the composition of a general law (Supreme Court Decision 201Do6503 Decided August 30, 2012).