The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

For the defendant, 40 hours of child abuse.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (child abuse) among the facts charged in the instant case, even though it cannot be deemed a physical and emotional abuse, as the victim F’s father-child relationship with the victim F, or attempted to scule or scule the victim for the purpose of causing a serious injury or admonition. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two years of imprisonment and forty hours of child abuse treatment program) that did not consider a favorable reason for sentencing even though the victim D, who committed an unfair special assault in sentencing, did not want the Defendant’s punishment, is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the term “child abuse” refers to an adult, including a guardian, who does harm to a child’s health or welfare or commits physical or mental violence or cruel acts that may impede the normal development of a child (Article 3 subparag. 7 of the Child Uniforms Act), and the child welfare law is the protected legal interests of the child, “child’s health and welfare,” and the subject of protection is “a person under 18 years of age.” Thus, the concept of child abuse under the Child Welfare Act needs to be interpreted more broadly than the concept of abuse under the Criminal Act.

In addition, “ emotional abuse” refers to an act falling under emotional abuse without accompanying the exercise of tangible force, but rather does not reach physical damage, and does not necessarily require the purpose or intent of emotional abuse against a child. It is sufficient to do so with the dolusent recognition of the risk or possibility of undermining the mental health and development of a child’s own act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1348, Dec. 23, 2015). The “act of emotional abuse” under Article 17 subparag. 5 of the Child Uniforms Act is practically developing a child’s mental health and normal development.