2013No2093 A. Abuse (the name of a partially recognized crime)

B. Child Welfare Violation

1.(a) A

2.2.B

Defendant A and Prosecutor

Kim Jong-sung (prosecution) and Lee Jae-deok (Trial)

Attorney D (for the defendant)

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Gohap1449 Decided June 13, 2013

November 21, 2013

All appeals filed by Defendant A and Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

On the grounds delineated below, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion.

In light of the fact that each E uses violence due to his usual G, the fact that E is weak, the fact that E is dissatisfying, well-fying, and good doping, the police and family members led to the E’s statement or limited liability, the details of E’s statement at the first police, etc., the Defendant A was abused. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on this ground, even though there is no credibility in the E’s statement.

(B) The judgment of the court below found the defendant guilty on the basis of L, I, M, N, andO's respective legal statements as hearsay evidence without admissibility or credibility. The judgment below found the death of abuse on the premise that the possibility of death is foreseeable, even though there is a possibility of an original shock shock or a light pressure shocking, the judgment below found the death of salt poisoning. The judgment below found the defendant guilty on the premise that the possibility of predictability exists, even though it is difficult to see that the salt was included in food and beverages, and that there is a possibility of death.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Defendant B

Although the ‘act of neglect' prescribed in the Child Welfare Act is deemed to be an act at risk of lowering the level of welfare by lowering the quality of daily life of a child, it is an act of abuse that leads to blocking without creating basic conditions such as food, clothing, or support even though the lower court’s judgment was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine for not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that there was no proof that Defendant B committed such an act merely limited to the act of abandonment or acts of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing on Defendant A

The sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Defendant A asserted that the judgment on the credibility of the testimony was exercised by E by using violence, but Defendant A’s initial police officer’s testimony that it was good for E to use the testimony, and that Defendant A did not hear the speech that it was at the time of E from Pyeongtaek G. Rather, Defendant A’s testimony was forced to use a false testimony for E-mail. However, Defendant A’s testimony that it was difficult for E-mail to use a false testimony to use a false testimony that it was conducted by the police officer’s first time after her testimony. However, Defendant A’s testimony that it was difficult to use the false testimony to use a false testimony that it was conducted by the police officer’s first time after her testimony to use a false testimony, and that it was difficult to use the false testimony to use the testimony for E-mail. In light of the meaning of the above, Defendant A’s testimony that it was conducted by the police officer’s first time after her testimony to use a false testimony for E-mail and that it would be difficult for her family members to use the false testimony.

Therefore, this part of Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination of the admissibility and credibility of a related person’s statement

In a case where a statement is used as direct evidence of a crime, even though it is deemed hearsay evidence, it does not necessarily mean that it is hearsay evidence in the case where it is used as circumstantial evidence of an indirect fact unrelated to the authenticity of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do1252, Feb. 25, 2000; 99Do1252, Feb. 25, 200).

In full view of the circumstances such as L, I, M, N, and 0’s statements adopted as evidence of guilt include the victims’ attitude, life, and habits that they directly experienced, part of others’ statements are included, but these parts can be circumstantial evidence to determine the credibility of the statements made by E and Defendant A, and since G’s contents constitute a case where it is impossible to make a statement due to death, it is admissible under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the above statements is admissible. Since it is difficult to find any circumstances to deny the credibility of the statements made by the court below, it does not seem that there is any illegality in the judgment of evidence by the court below which conducted each of the above statements.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Determination on the causal relationship between salt poisoning and death

W’s autopsy test report on Na+C1-A was detected in the clinical chemical examination of G’s snow fluid amount, and this degree’s Na+C1-A+C1-A are presumed to have been the level of death, and Na+Cl-A+Cl-A-B was presumed to have been the higher concentration before the death, considering the K+V presumed to have been presumed to have ex post facto alvable, G’s dysiums can be considered to have been transferred to G’s private person (high yttrium transfusion, etc.) by salt addiction. In addition, there is a ground for external force, such as dynaium transfusion and salvine cyconsis in the outer cover, it cannot be completely ruled out that the possibility of salvous shock by light shock can not be ruled out.

According to the E’s statement at the investigation agency and the court below, Defendant A’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dynaf’s dyna.

Therefore, there is a causal relationship between Defendant A’s abuse and G’s death, and Defendant A’s assertion disputing this is without merit.

(4) Determination of predictability of the outcome of death

In general, it is generally known that the excessive intake of salt may cause serious harm to the physical function and health condition. In full view of the age of G (H students and 10 years of age), the period during which abuse lasts (in the event that Defendant A forced to drink a salt breab, it began one month before the death) and the quantity of salt boomed (E stored as boomed on the launch of a fluor size, and stated that Defendant A puts down two fluent salt with a flus, and then flusened salt at the heart, and then flusened salt at the heart time). In full view of the fact that salt brued was dried at the heart time, it is anticipated that G may cause death if flusing a salt with such salt.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant B is the friendship between the victim E and the victim G, and even if the victims are raised and protected together with Defendant A, the victims are obliged to confirm and supervise whether they are being brought up normally.

Nevertheless, Defendant B committed physical and mental abuse from September 2009 to August 15, 2012, including Defendant A’s criminal facts, with the victims, but did not divide the dialogue with victims or check the situation of fostering at all. Accordingly, Defendant B violated the Child Welfare Act by neglecting the basic protection and fostering of victims who are children under his own protection.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that, on the grounds that the Child Welfare Act’s act of neglect is one of child abuse, and is punished equally, as a child abuse, the act of neglect is likely to disturb the child’s welfare, such as physical, sexual and emotional abuse, and that it constitutes abuse to the extent that it prevents a child from enjoying a happy life due to such act, and is equivalent to abandonment or physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Furthermore, the court below held that: (a) considering that Defendant B made efforts to maintain his/her livelihood, such as family consciousness, including E and G; (b) given that he/she did not know that he/she was in full charge of raising the child to E and G due to his/her business work; (c) given that he/she did not know that he/she did not appear at school; and (d) that he/she did not know that he/she did not appear at school; and (e) that he/she did not know that he/she did not have to protect the child; and (e) that he/she did not know that he/she did not know that he/she did not appear in his/she had to protect the child.

(3) Judgment of the court below

Article 17 of the Child Welfare Act provides for 11 prohibited acts; subparagraph 1 (Act of selling and selling children or mediating such acts) and subparagraph 2 (Act of doing so to the children shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won (Article 71 (1) 1) and subparagraph 3 (Act of Abuse which may cause harm to the body of the children), subparagraph 5 (Act of Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence, etc. which may cause harm to the mental health and development of the children), subparagraph 6 (Act of Neglecting the protection and supervision of the children, or neglecting to protect, protect, treat and educate the children under 10 (Act of doing so to the public) and subparagraph 7 (Act of doing so to the extent that a person who has a disability may be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 years or a fine not exceeding 50,000 won, and money and other valuables or other valuables to be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15,000 won or less than 17

It is reasonable to view that only an act can be assessed.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the court below to determine that the act of abuse, which is likely to impair the welfare of a child, is an act of abuse that leads to the blocking of a child without creating basic conditions such as food, clothing and shelter where the child can enjoy a happy life, or that is equivalent to the act of abandonment or physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. The prosecutor's assertion that it is difficult to accept the prosecutor's assertion that the act of abuse, which is at risk of lowering the level of welfare by lowering the quality of the child's daily life, should be all deemed an act of neglect.

Under the above premise, the lower court’s determination that it was insufficient to recognize that Defendant B’s act of abuse was committed by Defendant B, or that Defendant B was “act of neglect.” In light of the evidence, the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor, it is a primary offender with no record of crime, and the Defendant’s grandparent and his grandparents were not punished for Defendant A, and the lower court’s submission of a written agreement to the effect that it was difficult to acknowledge that Defendant B’s act of abuse was committed by Defendant B, or that it was difficult to acknowledge that Defendant B was “act of neglect.” Meanwhile, the lower court’s reasoning that Defendant A and the Defendant’s act of drinking water did not go against the Defendant’s age, including the fact that Defendant A and the Defendant did not suffer from her own physical harm, and that it was difficult to see that the Defendant’s act of drinking water was likely to go beyond the lower court’s age of drinking water, and that it was difficult to see the Defendant’s age of drinking water and drinking water.

Therefore, the defendant A and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant A and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The judges of the presiding judge, Gimdong.

Judgment's normal rules

Judge Goo-de

1) E는 자신이 G을 떄리지 않으면 피고인 A이 E와 G을 때렸기 때문에 피고인 A이 보는 데서 G을 때렸다고 진술하였고, 피고

J. A also stated at the police that he was at the time he was at the time he was at the time of being at the glass tape because he was at the time when he was at the time of a short time. The seized substitute

Part of the material of trees shall be reduced to a glass tape (Evidence No. 399 pages), all of which shall be reduced to a glass tape;