The part concerning Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance concerning the defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 2 had exercised due care and supervision necessary to prevent child abuse in F Childcare Centers. In other words, the judgment below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (the first instance court’s sentence against Defendant A) against Defendant A (the community service order for 8 months in prison, the suspension of execution of 2 years in prison, the community service order for 80 hours in prison, the lecture order for prevention of recidivism of child abuse for 40 hours in prison, the second instance court’s order: imprisonment for 2 years in prison, the suspension of execution of 3 years in prison, the community service order for 300 hours in prison, the order for prevention of recidivism of child abuse for 40 hours in prison) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s appeal

A. We examine the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant did not directly witness a part of the crime A at the site and did not restrain it (the defendant was not easy to recognize the child abuse of A).

However, according to CCTV images, etc., at the time of the Defendant’s act of abuse, such as scaming the victimized children, the Defendant was recognized as having directly observed it for a considerable period of time before or after the Defendant’s act of abuse, and thus, such justification cannot be accepted) and ② the Defendant has taken measures to prevent child abuse against ordinary teachers, etc.

One of the arguments is that, as seen in the above paragraph (1), even if a direct witness of a child abuse act, it seems that the situation of the subsequent case is specific, or measures such as setting up measures to prevent recurrence are not taken, and 3, other infant care teachers working at the F Child Care Center directly witness a crime of A and speak the fact or report the same to the defendant.