Defendant

All appeals filed by the Defendants B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Child Welfare Act and the violation of the Child Welfare Act of early November 2012 against P and early Jan. 201, 2013, among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, Defendant B 1 did not commit any abuse against P and M as stated in this part of the facts charged, and in relation to the crime of violation of Article 74 (Joint Penal Provisions) of the Child Welfare Act, since Defendant did not neglect to exercise due care and supervision to prevent child abuse against Defendant A and Co-Defendant C, the above crime of violation of the Child Welfare Act is not all established. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of each part of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor of the court below against the Defendant for six months, suspension of execution one year, and fine of ten million won is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the children under the age of 1 are weak and physically and emotionally weak as to the violation of the Child Welfare Act due to debrison of unsanitary methods by the Defendants, the Defendants committed the crime of violating the Child Welfare Act, as stated in this part of the facts charged, although the Defendants committed the crime of violating the Child Welfare Act, as stated in this part of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) As to the partial injury to Defendant A and violation of the Child Welfare Act to Defendant A’s G, as described in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant committed the bodily injury, such as flaging, by making the children under the age of 1, who were under the age of 1, but were physically and emotional weak, and the Defendants could sufficiently recognize the possibility that the use of the flag was detrimental to children’s health.