A. The injury cannot be viewed as an injury under the Criminal Act, since it does not harm the completeness of the body or interfere with physiological functions of the victim.

B. The Defendant in violation of the Child Welfare Act committed an act as stated in the judgment below on the intent to discipline the victim, and did not have the intent to cause damage to the victim’s body or commit physical abuse.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the victim suffered a severe hole of 5 parts of both arms due to the defendant's act due to the infant of 26 months, the victim continued for 7 days or more, and the victim seems to have interfered with the defendant's act at night, or to have shown symptoms leading to the game for other people's entry, it constitutes a criminal injury under the Criminal Act that damages the completeness of the victim's body or interferes with the physiological function.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant’s career, expertise on infant, the victim’s age, and the number of remaining parts of the victim’s arms and the degree of injury, etc., the Defendant’s act of shouldering the victim’s arms on several occasions cannot be deemed an exercise of the right to receive proper decoration against the victim, and the Defendant’s intent to injure the victim’s body or engage in physical abuse can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.