logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.03.25 2019고단4059
아동복지법위반(아동학대)
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for eight months, for six months, for six months, and for four months, for each of the defendants C.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a multi-level teacher who is the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government "F Child Care Center" (hereinafter referred to as "child care center"), who is operated by the head of the child care center (hereinafter referred to as "child care center"), and Defendant B is a multi-level infant care teacher of the above child care center, and Defendant C is a multi-level infant care teacher of the above child care center, and Defendant C was also a multi-level child care teacher of the above child care center.

On March 4, 2019, the victimized children G (the age 2) was a child admitted to the above child care center, and the development of the fluenite movement is very active, more active than the children, and there was a wide and fluorial appearance, or a fluorial appearance with the children, and as a result, the Defendants were willing to sit the victimized children to the fluor for the convenience of their duties.

At the above child care center around 12:20 on April 3, 2019, Defendants conspired with each other, despite the completion of meals, Defendant C had a arrogate, and Defendant A was seated with the above arrogater. Defendant B, unlike other children from around 36 minutes to May 13, 2019, had a arrogate board with the arrogater and set up a arrogate, and had a arrogate and set up a arrogate, and Defendant B, unlike other children, were forced to 36 minutes during the period from around 36 minutes until around 12:56, thereby making it impossible for the arrogater to go home, thereby detrimental to the mental health and development of the child, and committed emotional abuse, as shown in the attached Table, between March 25, 2019 to May 13, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The police statement of H;

1. Copy of a parent-individual wall, CCTV-faging photograph and CCTV image data for child-care centers;

1. The Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion of investigation report (Attachment of police’s written statement of opinion to be accompanied by video summary materials of crime list).

arrow