아동복지법위반
All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant's act was not committed for the purpose of admonishing the age of the victim, the tendency of the defendant A, and the same act as this case, and the extent of the tangible force exercised by the defendant A to the victims, but rather constitutes the defendant's act of abusing the child's body as prohibited by the Child Welfare Act, or the emotional abuse detrimental to the mental health and development of the child.
Furthermore, the facts acknowledged by the lower court (the fact that Defendant A stated that the victim H is off the stores off the stores, and when s to the stores on several occasions) constitute luminous abuse.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of all the charges of this case, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the concept of abuse under the Child Welfare Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s determination as to the crime against G is that Defendant A is aware of the fact that Defendant A had been aware of one of the support tools in G’s face, and that Defendant A had been in the state of having knee and knee G, etc. in the left hand; ② Defendant A was in the state of “G” and “G”, and Defendant A was in the state of knishing, winter, and G, and was in the state of knishing, while G was in the state of knishing back to lock, and was in the state of knishing, and g was in the state of knishing, ③ there was a woman and child who appears to be another infant care teacher in front of Defendant A and G; ④ Defendant A was in the state of knishing after the operation, and Defendant A was in the state of knishing, and there was insufficient evidence submitted by the prosecutor to acknowledge that Defendant A constituted “physical abuse” or “physical abuse”.