The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendants B (1) recognized the mistake of Defendant B (unfair sentencing) and made efforts to recover damage, etc., the sentence of the lower court that ordered Defendant B to complete a program of child abuse treatment for a period of 2 years and 80 hours of imprisonment is excessively unreasonable.

(2) Defendant A (A) misunderstanding the fact that Defendant A faithfully provided child abuse prevention education to child care teachers, and voluntarily installed CCTV in child care centers, thereby performing the duty of management and supervision to prevent child abuse.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case and erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) In light of the fact that most of the parents of a child suffering from unfair sentencing expressed their intent not to have the Defendant A punished, etc., the lower court’s sentence that sentenced Defendant A to a fine of KRW 7 million is excessively unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the instant crime committed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing against Defendant B) committed a physical and emotional abuse to many children repeatedly and habitually, and the nature of the crime is not good, etc., the lower court’s sentence against Defendant B is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 74 of the Child Uniforms Act provides that “If a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation or individual commits an offence under Article 71 in connection with the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions.

Provided, That this shall not apply where a corporation or an individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such violation.

“Determination” is set forth in the judgment.

. The instant case.