The judgment below

Defendant A’s act of physical abuse at least 3 times a year in the following crimes: Defendant A’s act of physical abuse and Defendant B’s act.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (Defendant B) was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision to prevent child abuse by providing Defendant A with education on the prevention of child abuse.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of four months and the fine of five million won, the suspended sentence of one year, the community service work hours of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, and Defendant A, as recorded in the facts charged, sufficiently recognized the fact that certain victimized children were engaged in physical abuse or emotional abuse and their habituality, the lower court acquitted some of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A, which was unfair in sentencing (the imprisonment of September, 80 hours, and the 80-hour child abuse treatment program program program program program program) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Before the prosecutor's ex officio decision on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor's ex officio, the prosecutor's name of "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual assault)" among the facts charged in this case against Defendant A in the trial of the court below, as "Habitual assault", and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act apply to the case where "Article 264 and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act" are changed to "Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act". The court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment by this court. On the other hand, the prosecutor prosecuted only emotional abuse against the victim'sO, such as 3 re-14th period again in the attached Table I, but the court below found the defendant guilty that the defendant's victim's habitual assault was not habitually abused, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts.