The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

The pronouncement of sentence against B shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Article 269(1) of the Criminal Act is already a provision that has already been stipulated as an appropriate means to achieve the legislative purpose of protecting the life of a fetus, and there is more effective and mitigated method to achieve the above legislative purpose than criminal punishment for abortion. As such, Article 269(1) of the Criminal Act is unconstitutional provision that infringes on the right to self-determination of the pregnant woman as derived from Article 10 of the Constitution. ② Article 14(1)5 of the Mother and Child Health Act includes cases where “the maintenance of pregnancy seriously undermines or is likely to seriously injure the health of the mother’s body for health reasons” includes cases where the physical and mental health condition of the mother’s body is significantly harmed. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principle that the maintenance of pregnancy of the defendant C was seriously infringed or likely to be infringed due to frequent assault and economic incompetence of the defendant C, and thus, it is difficult for the lower court to find the Defendant guilty of an unlawful act of violating Article 15(1)4 of the Mother and Child Health Act.