The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed in entirety.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the first original judgment (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below 2) The punishment of Defendant 2’s original judgment (a year of imprisonment and an additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the Defendant administered a philopon on January 2016, 2016, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and mistake.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated by examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal. Each of the offenses listed in the judgment of the court below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the judgment of the court below, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below’s action that found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified, and there is no error of misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

(1) The Defendant, from the initial police investigation to the trial of the party, failed to administer chophones, except for those administered with a chophone on December 2015, 2015.

Comparedly made statements.

(2) On February 29, 2016, the result of the simple test of the defendant's defense was the voice.

③ On February 29, 2016, the appraisal of the Defendant’s hair made on February 29, 2016 from approximately 1cm to about 4cm in length on the part of the mother.