1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. (1) As to the violation of the Child Reinstatement Act among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found the credibility in Defendant B, C, and E’s legal statement at the first instance court and the statement at the investigation agency of the victim I in the case of abuse victim I.

In full view of the background leading up to the crime, the age, method of punishment, and the degree of injury at the time of the crime in this case, the victim was found guilty on the ground that there was no other educational means in addition to the abuse act or the act committed in Vietnam, and the method and degree of the punishment have been significantly lost objective validity. (2) In the case of murder, there was credibility in E’s statement based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

According to the statement, Defendant A, after Defendant B went to work, can be recognized as having committed an additional assault as described in the facts charged. ② Defendant A continued abuse against the victim by providing only one day to the victim, having the victim live in Vietnam, having the victim live in person, and assaulting the victim directly, or ordering the victim to assault the victim. Defendant A, even on the day of the occurrence of the instant case, had Defendant B arrived at the victim’s room after Defendant B arrived at the victim’s room, to the extent of assaulting the victim two times. The victim suffered abuse for a long time without any change in the body function of the victim, which led to the increase in the volume of blood within the organization, thereby reducing the awareness of the de facto termination of divorce and resulting in the death of the credit shock of the instant case in the p.m.