All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant alleged the misapprehension of the legal principle in one time when the defendant, who is a child, committed an act of fostering a child, and cannot be deemed as an abuse of the child’s body under the Child Welfare Act, and constitutes a legitimate act. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion

B. The lower court’s sentence (5 million won of fine) on the grounds of unfair sentencing by both parties is too minor or too unreasonable.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, it is reasonable to interpret the concept of abuse under the Child Welfare Act more broadly than the concept of abuse under the Criminal Act, in full view of the following: (a) as to whether the Defendant’s act constitutes “an act of abuse that causes damage to a child’s body” as defined in the Child Welfare Act, Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Child Welfare Act provides that “the term “an act of abuse by an adult, including a guardian, does harm the child’s health or welfare or commits physical, mental, or sexual violence or cruel acts that may impede normal development of the child, and a child’s guardian abandons or abandons the child.” (i.e., a child) is limited to a person under 18 years of age (i.e., a child), and the Child Welfare Act is subject to protection for a child under 18 years of age, and thus, the child need to be protected for the full and harmonious development of the child’s full and harmonious personality.”

Even if the Child Welfare Act prohibits the child, it constitutes "an abuse that causes harm to the child's body."

Furthermore, the person with parental authority has the right to protect and educate children (Article 913 of the Civil Act) and may take disciplinary action necessary to protect and educate children.