Defendants are not guilty.

A. Defendant A (1) Child Care Center of misunderstanding of Facts E (hereinafter “Child Care Center of this case”)

In light of the scale of the child care center and the ordinary work process, the classification of a teacher in a teacher in a teacher’s office is formally a child, and all teachers take care of the child, and the ultimate responsibility for the protection and rearing of the child is against Defendant B, the head of the child care center. Defendant A left the child care center in this case and her parents do so, and thus, Defendant A was responsible for the protection and rearing of the child, despite the fact that Defendant B and the teachers employed in the child care center in this case at the time, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby recognizing Defendant A’s act of neglect against the victim. 2) In light of the concept of child abuse under the Child Welfare Act, Article 71(1)2 of the Child Welfare Act, and Article 17 subparag. 3 through 8 of the Child Welfare Act, the concept of child abuse under Article 17 subparag. 6 of the Child Welfare Act, and Article 71(1)2 of the Child Welfare Act equally punish a person who committed an act falling under the child care center in this case.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2 million won) is too unlimited and unfair. (B) Considering the fact that Article 71(1)2 of the Child Welfare Act of misunderstanding of Fact-finding Article 17 subparag. 3, 5, 7, and 8 of the Child Welfare Act equally punishs a person who commits an act falling under Article 17 subparag. 6 of the Child Welfare Act, and that Article 17 subparag. 6 of the Child Welfare Act concurrently regulates the abandonment of a child and the neglect of a child against a child.