A. Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (Child Welfare)

Child abuse by facility workers, etc.)

(b) Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual child abuse);

(c) Child Welfare Violation;

1.(a) A

2.(a) B

3.c. C

Park Instige (prosecution) and Park Instige (Public Trial)

Attorney D (for all the defendants)

Law Firm E (for Defendant C)

Attorney F, G, H, I

July 10, 2017

1. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and two years;

However, the execution of each of the above defendants shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

In order to order the above Defendants to take a lecture for the prevention of recidivism of child abuse for 80 hours, and to provide community service for 320 hours.

2. Defendant C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,00,000.

If the above fine is not paid, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

shall order the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

Defendant A is a teacher in charge of the care of the Ordo-ro, which is five years of age and five of the K kindergarten located in the Busan Seo-gu, Busan. Defendant B is a teacher in charge of the child abuse crime, both of which are four years of age and four of the above kindergarten, and Defendant C is a person obligated to report the child abuse crime. Defendant C exercised the right to appoint and dismiss teachers of a kindergarten while working as the head of the above kindergarten, and managed and supervised the whole schedule of education.

1. Defendant A

At around 12:59:23 on December 14, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed violence against the victim, who is a child, on a total of 24 occasions from December 5, 2016 to December 14, 2016, on the ground that the victim L (five years of age) was unable to properly engage in dynamics or actions, and then pushed the victim’s ear, and then pushed the victim’s head. In addition, the Defendant used the victim’s head at around December 5, 2016 to December 14, 2016, the Defendant abused or abused the victim on a total of 121 occasions, such as the attached list of crimes (A) through 8.

As a result, the Defendant, as a person obligated to report a crime of child abuse, habitually abused a child’s physical abuse that may injure the child’s body or physical health and development, or emotional abuse that may injure the mental health and development of the child.

2. Defendant B

On December 13, 2016, at around 12:00:56, the Defendant experienced the Plaintiff’s head and shoulder on several occasions with the victim’s plastic-type door, even though the Defendant reported that the victim’s Ma (n, 4 years old) talked with the 16 originals of the instant K kindergarten fireworks, and that the victim’s Ma did not hear the horses.

In addition, from December 5, 2016 to December 24, 2016, the Defendant assaulted 12 victims, including the attached list (B) 1 to 9, on a total of 35 occasions, on a total of 12 victims, who are children. As such, the Defendant, as a person obligated to report a crime of child abuse, committed habitually the act of physical abuse that may inflict physical damage on a child’s body, health, and development.

3. Defendant C

From December 5, 2016 to December 14, 2016, the Defendant committed physical abuse or emotional abuse against the victims, who are children, as described in the above paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as the above kindergarten childcare teacher, employed by the Defendant in the course of performing his/her duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the first trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each police protocol of statement on the N,O, P, Q, Q, R, Q, T, U,V, W, Y, Z, AAA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AE, AF, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AmM, AmM, AO, AP, AP, Q, AS, AS, ATS, ATS, AU, AV, AX, AY, AY, B, BC, and BD;

1. CCTV images (Evidence Nos. 330);

1. Habituality of the judgment: As it is recognized that Defendant A and B have abused a child as stated in the facts constituting a crime repeatedly during the preparation period in the academic society, such dampness may be recognized in light of the frequency and method of the crime;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant A and B: Articles 7, 10(2), and 2 subparag. 4(l) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (the child abuse by a person obligated to report the child abuse, and the crime in the judgment was committed in preparation for the same academic society, including, but not limited to, the period, method, identity of the place, or the vicinity of the crime), Articles 72 and 71(1)2 of the Child Welfare Act, and subparagraphs 3 and 5 of Article 17 of the Child Welfare Act (including habitual child abuse, all of which);

Defendant C: Detailed concurrences on Articles 74, 71(1)2, 17 subparag. 3, and 52 of the Child Welfare Act

Defendant A and B: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

3. Selection of punishment;

Defendant A and B: Determination of Imprisonment

4. Aggravation for concurrent crimes; and

Defendant C: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

5. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant C: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

6. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A and B: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances):

7. Order to attend lectures and order of community service;

Defendant A and B: Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 8(1) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes

1. Defendant C and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. Defendant C is merely a director employed by the founder of K kindergarten and cannot be deemed as an employer of Defendant A and B. Thus, Defendant C cannot be a criminal offender under Article 74 of the Child Welfare Act. However, even if Defendant C is a criminal offender under Article 74 of the Child Welfare Act, Defendant C cannot be deemed to have been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning his/her duties as the head of K kindergarten, and thus falls under the proviso of Article 74 of the Child Welfare Act.

2. Related statutes;

If the representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other servant of the corporation or an individual commits an offence under Article 71 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions: Provided, That this shall not apply where such corporation or individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such offence.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following facts admitted by the aforementioned evidence, Defendant C is the actual operator of K kindergarten, and thus, Defendant A and B is the principal offender of the joint penal provision under Article 74 of the Child Welfare Act.

① From around 200 to 2005, Defendant C was the president of K Child Care Center, from around 2005 to around 2007, and was temporarily temporarily temporarily retired from office. Since then, Defendant C was reinstated and then was the president of K kindergarten from June 1, 2009 to then.

② The founder of the K kindergarten is Nonindicted Party BE. However, the above BE does not participate in the operation of the K kindergarten, and Defendant C stated that he is operating the K kindergarten in the course of investigation.

③ After having interview with Defendant A and B, Defendant A and B decided to appoint Defendant A and B as the teacher of K kindergarten. In addition, Defendant A and B received the monthly payment of the teacher of K kindergarten from Defendant C (Article 1142 of Investigation Records, No. 1142 of Investigation Records, No. 543 of Investigation Records, No. 543). (1) Defendant A and B are under the direction of work from Defendant C, and there was no fact that Defendant A and B were under the direction of work from said BE.

In light of the above-mentioned Defendant C’s tenure of office, K kindergarten operation method, Defendant A and B’s employment process, work instruction method, etc., Defendant C is the actual operator of K kindergarten, and Defendant A and B should be deemed the actual employee of Defendant C.

B. In addition, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, Defendant C provided education for the prevention of child abuse to Defendant A and B on an irregular basis, but the education was limited to the formal line; Defendant A and B provided child abuse at any time in the class or the lecture where the public place was located; and Defendant C did not know of the aforementioned facts; in particular, Defendant C did not neglect to exercise due care and supervision for the prevention of child abuse if CCTV was installed in the class and lecture party where child abuse took place; and in particular, Defendant C was able to prevent child abuse in advance or prevent early stage if CCTV was installed, it could prevent child abuse, but Defendant C could not have been negligent in exercising due care and supervision for the prevention of child abuse.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Although Defendant A and B are kindergarten teachers who have the duty to protect a victimized child, they are not aware of their status and have failed to comply with the above Defendants’ instructions to make preparation for an academic conference event or have failed to perform the said Defendants’ behavior, and they are physically assaulted or have emotionally abused the victimized child over a set of several times, and have given them a large amount of attention to the development of the victimized child and have a very heavy responsibility for such crime. Moreover, a large number of the victimized children are disadvantageous to the fact that the victimized child is trying to punish the Defendant.

However, on the other hand, the above Defendants are detained in January 2017 and have several times for six months of detention and reflective time, and some of their parents want to be punished for the future of the above Defendants, and the above Defendants have no criminal power and are unable to operate the child-related institutions for ten years and are unable to be employed, and there is little possibility of recidivism.

In addition to the above-mentioned circumstances, comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, including the age 9, sex, environment, motive and circumstances of the criminal conduct, and circumstances after the criminal conduct, the execution of imprisonment with prison labor shall be suspended for the above-mentioned Defendants, but the participation in the curriculum for the prevention of recidivism and community service for a considerable period of time shall be ordered. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

2. Defendant C

As seen earlier, Defendant C is in the position of employing, managing, and supervising teachers, including Defendant A and B, while operating K kindergarten substantially. However, in order to prevent child abuse, it may be said that he/she neglected to exercise due diligence and supervision in order to prevent such act, and that it is very significant. Also, the fact that Defendant C’s excessive performance demand for the teachers of Defendant C appears to have caused child abuse during the academic session may be considered in an unfavorable circumstance.

In addition to the above circumstances, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: Defendant C’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, and all the sentencing conditions expressed in the course of pleading

Judge Long-term Judge