When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who operates a 'D' childcare center in the Seogu Daegu-gu.

On February 17:00 on February 23, 2015, the Defendant reported the dispute between the victim E (son and 6 years of age) and the patient’s face at one time on the ground that the victim does not hear the horses.

As a result, the defendant committed physical abuse against a child that may injure the child's body or injure the physical health and development of the child.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Reports on internal investigation (attaching photographs of damaged parts, confirmation at the site of the case, attach photographs thereto, attach seized objects photographs);

1. A criminal investigation report (to attach a record of video recording and recording of statements made by the victim E);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing recording records;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and subparagraph 2 of Article 71 (1) and subparagraph 3 of Article 17 of the Child Welfare Act (Selection of Fines) concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act who bear the costs of lawsuit, asserts that the defendant did not leave the defendant, and that there was no fact that he/she

However, according to the evidence of the court below, the defendant's face was taken once by a children's gate on the ground that he does not hear the horses, such as the above facts constituting the crime, and the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that there was an address on the upper part of the eyebrow.

On the other hand, the witness G testified to the effect that he was present as a witness in this court and there was no injury to E’s face at the time of his discharge, but it is judged that he made a false testimony against his memory on behalf of the defendant who is the representative of the child care center.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

The reason for sentencing.