The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.
The defendant shall complete a child abuse treatment program for 40 hours.
Punishment of the crime
[criminal power] On October 10, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor at Suwon District Court for the crime of interference with business, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 18, 2019.
On March 24, 2019, the Defendant sent a message to the victim B (the age of 17) who was a child of the Defendant who was living in a high school while living together with the Defendant at the time of Ansan-si, the Defendant sent to C a message stating that “The Defendant shall deposit the money of the width head of the Tong with one passbook at the time of the gold-time and the body of the head of the Tong is the body of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu.”
Accordingly, the defendant committed emotional abuse that harms the mental health and development of children.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. The police statement concerning B;
1. To close a C dialogue between the suspect and the victim;
1. Records before and after judgments: Criminal records, replys to criminal records, meetings of agreement on case, meetings of Suwon District Court, seven criminal records of Suwon District Court (the second instance), decisions of Suwon District Court (the first instance court), application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the judgment of Suwon District Court;
1. Article 71 (1) 2 of the Child Welfare Act and Article 17 subparagraph 5 of the Child Welfare Act, the choice of punishment for an offense, and the choice of imprisonment with labor;
1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;
1. Article 8 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes;
1. Article 39(1) of the Exempted Criminal Act (In light of the substance of the instant crime, overall sentencing circumstances, and the crime of interference with business in which judgment became final and conclusive, it seems that no more severe punishment would have been pronounced even if the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the case on which final and conclusive judgment was rendered)