A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a “E” teacher at the “D Child Care Center” located in Busan B apartment Cdong-gu, Busan, and worked for the period from March 1, 2019 to July 16, 2019. The Defendant is a person in charge of child care for five victimized children, such as victimized children F (ma and 2 years of age).

On May 24, 2019, the Defendant committed physical abuse that harms physical health and development of five victimized children on a total of 14 occasions from the above Si to July 11, 2019, as shown in the list of crimes, on the ground that the victimized child F was late at the childcare center “E” room for the child’s head, thereby keeping the child’s entrance into the room to the extent that the child’s head would be fast back.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to G, H, I, J, and K;

1. Application of CCTV closure photographs and CCTV image CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 7, Article 10 (2) 12, and Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes, Article 71 (1) 2, and Article 17 subparagraph 3 of the Child Welfare Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 8 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes;

1. In full view of the Defendant’s age, occupation, risk of recidivism, motive, process and seriousness of the crime, degree and anticipated side effects of the Defendant’s disadvantage due to employment restriction order, prevention of crime of child abuse that can be achieved, victim protection effect, social interests, etc., the Defendant is deemed to have significantly low risk of recidivism, and thus, the Defendant does not issue an employment restriction order to the Defendant.