The judgment below

The guilty part (including the acquittal part of the reasons) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

(b).

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing a public prosecution on the charge of assault and intimidation, and rendered a judgment of innocence on February 3, 2018 on the charge of violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (child abuse), and rendered a judgment of innocence on the charge of violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (child abuse) around April 2017, and rendered a judgment of conviction on the remainder of the facts charged.

However, the Defendant did not file an appeal against the lower judgment, and only the Prosecutor appealed on the part of the lower judgment not guilty and not guilty on the grounds of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine as to the convicted part on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissed part of the prosecution against assault and intimidation is separated and confirmed as it is and excluded from the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (child abuse) around April 2017, this case’s act may be assessed as “an act detrimental to the physical health and development of the victim,” on the ground that the mother, in care of the mother, who became aware of the victim, went beyond the victim’s knowledge,” and that the Defendant’s act may be assessed as “an act detrimental to the physical health and development of the victim.”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

2) On February 3, 2018, with respect to the violation of the Child Uniforms Act (Child abuse), the Defendant stamped the victim who first left the door outside the front door as a mobile phone with a photographic seal affixed to the cell phone.

When the defendant was aware that he was able to get out of his house and that he was present, if the victim was not aware of his own house, it would be in accordance with the rule of experience that he immediately gets out of his house and enter into the house after finding out the victim from the first door.

Therefore, the defendant's act of placing the victim in the above situation is sufficiently recognized.