All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In misapprehension of the legal principle, “physical abuse that may injure the body or health and development of the body” under Article 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act is not necessary to be injured, but it should be deemed that at least such act results in a negative change to the body of the victimized child, or brings about external or functional changes. Even if the Defendant’s act of bringing the head of the victimized child up six times as stated in the facts charged, such act may constitute a crime of assault under the Criminal Act, it is difficult to deem that such act results in a negative change to the body of the victimized child, external or functional change. The Defendant’s act does not constitute the elements of Article 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act. 2) An unreasonable sentencing sentence is heavy.

B. The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) sentence of the lower court is somewhat minor.

2. Determination

A. 1) Interpretation of “physical abuse” under Article 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act is defined as “an act of physical, mental or sexual violence or cruel treatment that may harm the child’s health or welfare or that may impede normal development of the child, and that the child’s guardian abandons or abandons the child.” (2) The penal abuse under the Criminal Act refers to “an act of physical pain or mental discrimination” (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do223, Apr. 25, 2014). The Child Welfare Act protects the child’s health and welfare (see Article 1) and the child welfare act is subject to protection (see Article 3 subparag. 1). Meanwhile, the former Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12136, Apr. 28, 2014; 200Do223, Apr. 25, 2014; 3).