2015 Highest 1820 A. Child Welfare Violation (Child abuse)

(b) Child Welfare violation (child abandonment or neglect);

(c) Intimidation (Revocation of Public Prosecution)

(d) Revocation of a public prosecution)

UA (73 years, South Korea), free of office

Residence

Reference domicile

Kim Jong-Un (Lawsuits) and Kim Jong-sung (Trial)

Attorney Kim Jong-soo (Korean National Assembly Line)

May 30, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

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

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violating the Child Welfare Act due to physical abuse and violating the Child Welfare Act due to neglect is acquitted.

Facts of crime

As the child victim friendly ○, the defendant has been raising the child victim since around October 2012, since the her wife ○○ became a home due to the family flueniteization of the defendant's wife.

No one shall commit any physical or mental violence or abuse that may injure the health or welfare of a child or impede the normal development of a child.

On January 2013, the Defendant discovered that the Defendant was at the Defendant’s residence located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 000, and that the Defendant did not properly work on the house, and that the Defendant used the kitchen knife in the kitchen knife, and had the kitchen knife in the kitchen knife, and threatened the victimized child by showing the above kitchen knife before the victimized child was in the middle of the kitchen.

Accordingly, the defendant committed emotional abuse that harms the mental health and development of the victimized child.

Summary of Evidence (Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 71(1)2 and Article 17 subparag. 5 of the former Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Appointment of imprisonment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The need for severe punishment for child abuse should be taken into consideration; even if the purpose of admonition is included in the act of the accused, the act of causing knife itself cannot be deemed to be an act that goes beyond social norms, and its liability for such crime cannot be mitigated. However, the mother of the victimized child or the victimized child’s child’s child’s child desires to be the Defendant’s wife, and other circumstances such as circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, after the crime, etc. are considered)

【Non-guilty Part】

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

(a) Violation of the Child Welfare Act against a child victim Maternity0 (physical abuse);

On March 2014 through April 4, 2014, at the same place as the crime in the judgment of the defendant, and on the ground that the defendant asked a child to do an act to the child, he was assaulted by the victim, who was living alone, such as the victim's walking a part of the ship and walking a part of the ship at several times due to his intention to do so.

As a result, the defendant committed physical abuse that may injure the body or injure the health and development of the child victim.

B. The guardian of a child in violation of the Child Welfare Act against a child victim’s friendship or friendship (child neglect) shall not abandon the child under his/her protection and supervision or neglect the basic protection, rearing, treatment and education, including food, clothing and shelter.

Nevertheless, from October 2012 to May 4, 2014, the Defendant neglected to provide basic protection and rearing, including the food and clothing of the victimized children, by having the victimized children take exclusive charge of booming, fasting, and snow booming each day to the victimized children, and neglecting the meals of the victimized children.

2. Determination

A. As to the violation of the Child Welfare Act (physical abuse), this part of the facts charged is subject to facts that occurred around March 2013 or around April 4, 2013, and its applicable law is the former Child Welfare Act, not the current Child Welfare Act. (2) However, Article 17 Subparag. 3 of the former Child Welfare Act only provides for only "the act of abuse that causes damage to a child's body," and does not include "the act of physical abuse that causes harm to the child's physical health and development" as provided by Article 17 Subparag. 3 of the current Child Welfare Act, which is the applicable law under the facts charged.

(3) Therefore, in the case of this part of the facts charged, the defendant's act under the above provision of the former Child Welfare Act can be found guilty only when the victim's body was injured. In light of the evidence duly admitted, it is difficult to find out that the defendant's act was harmful to the victim's body and development, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the victim's body was damaged.

(4) Unlike the former Child Welfare Act, the reason why the Child Welfare Act was included in the physical abuse of “in the event of undermining the physical health and development of the victimized child,” seems to have arisen from the need to punish “in the event that there was an exercise of physical tangible power, but that degree does not reach the injury.” In such a respect, this part of the facts charged, which is only applicable to the former Child Welfare Act, cannot be applied as a physical abuse.

B. As to the violation of the Child Welfare Act (B) Article 17 subparag. 5 of the former Child Welfare Act provides that “an act of abandoning a child under his protection and supervision or neglecting to provide basic protection, rearing, medical treatment and education, including food, clothing or shelter,” the issue is whether it can be recognized as a defense in this case. (2) As to the meaning of detention, the Incheon District Court Decision 2012No. 1449 Decided June 13, 2013 ruled that the act of neglect was frequently punished as one of the child abuse, and that the Defendant’s physical, sexual, and emotional abuse was only punished accordingly, it is difficult to find the Defendant as a witness of this case’s physical and emotional abuse at least 10 days under the premise that the Defendant’s physical and emotional abuse was not known to the lower court, and thus, it is difficult to find the Defendant as a witness of this case’s 20th day without being able to enjoy his/her life due to such act.”

(C) Even based on the statements made by LB, the Defendant was fully 2-30,000 won per month to the Matern Matern, and the remaining living expenses are identified as being appropriated by the Defendant. This is confirmed in the statement made by the Defendant (the second police statement made by the Matern Matern Ma). (D) Of the police statements made by the Matern Matern Matern Matern Matern Ma, the Defendant was allowed to have the Matern Matern Matern Do, or Dob, the Domin Domin Do was the same, and the Domin Domin was the same, and the Domin Domin was more drinking than the Ma. (2) The Defendant was only found to have made the Matern Matern Ma, and the Defendant did not have the Matern Domin Domin Ma, and the Domin Ma was also made by the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged is not a crime or there is no proof of a crime, and it is not guilty pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Shin Shin-young