아동학대범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(아동학대치사)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.
The defendant's child abuse for 80 hours.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant does not have any act that could cause the victim to die.
Rather, the Defendant moved the victim to H, and made efforts to kill the victim, such as mobilization of helicopter at that place, and transfer the victim to a more larger hospital.
The two frameworks of the victim are likely to cause a chronic hiverosis because the defendant has already been aggravated before the time when the defendant started to care for the victim.
B. Defendant 1: The lower court’s imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) is too heavy.
Prosecutor: The sentence of the lower court is too minor.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor.
The main text of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act, amended by Act No. 1589, Dec. 11, 2018, effective June 12, 2019, provides that in cases where the court declares a punishment for committing a child abuse-related crime, it shall impose an order to operate a child-related institution or not to provide employment or actual labor to a child-related institution for a certain period simultaneously with the judgment of a child abuse-related crime case. The proviso of the above provision provides that the exemption shall be granted in cases where the risk of recidivism is significantly low or where the employment is determined otherwise, or where the employment is not restricted.
Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the above Act provides that the amended provisions of Article 29-3 apply to a person who committed a child abuse-related crime before this Act enters into force and has not been finally determined.
The crime of this case committed by the Defendant constitutes a child abuse-related crime to which Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act applies, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since it is necessary to determine whether the Defendant issued an employment restriction order or exempted from a child-related institution.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant.