The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the statement of the victimized child as evidence to acknowledge the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment as indicated in the lower judgment is likely to have been induced or forced due to the possibility that the victimized child was not able to make a statement during the three-time investigation process, and that the victimized child’s statement was directly made from the victimized child in the F’s statement, which is the mother of the victimized child F, can be said to be false.

At the time, the defendant was subject to the general proposal of the director in charge of child-care centers and did not make a statement to the effect that he led to the confession of criminal facts in the judgment of the court below.

In light of this, the defendant went to commit the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of attending order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a child care teacher who is in the strong breadth-gun C with the reinforcement of the child care centers (three years of age) and is not obligated to report child abuse crimes under Article 10(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes.

On May 26, 2015, the Defendant committed a child abuse crime against a child under his/her care, who, on the ground that he/she was not a victim E (V, 4 years of age) at the above string class from around 13:00 to 15:00, by causing a hole at the left side of the victim one time, thereby impairing the body of the child or undermining physical health and development of the body.

B. 1) Determination of the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, in a criminal trial of the relevant legal doctrine.