beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) acknowledged that the Defendant committed physical abuse against the victim, who is a child, by taking the victim's hand over several parts, such as the victim's hand, appearance, and others, as stated in the facts charged in this case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant, as a teacher of a “D” childcare center in the Glangdong-gun, Gldong-gun, the instant facts charged, around June 2014 through July 2014, committed physical abuse, i.e., physical harm to the body of the victim, who is a child, or harming physical health and development of the body, by taking the parts of the victim E (the 3 years old), who is a child, into consideration as the Defendant’s hand on account of the non-existence of the said childcare center.
B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it could not be deemed that the instant facts charged were proven without any reasonable doubt, by explaining the detailed reasons from Part II to Part VII to Part VII. In so doing, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.
C. The following facts and circumstances found based on the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's judgment and the court below's decision, i.e., the victim's statement in the case of each victim's statement, and the victim's statement contains contradictions in the victim's statement itself, and each victim's statement includes "G, H, and I, as well as H and I," but there is no material to support the damage to "G, H, and I" other than the victim (or the mother of the I, and the mother of K, the police, made each statement to the effect that the police does not seem to have been assaulted by I or K from the victim), and it appears that each statement of the victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's damage was distorted. ② The statement in the part that the victim's statement analysis was "when the victim was the defendant" among the victim's statements, M also made the victim's statement and the victim's statement.