beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (limited to six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service order, and 80 hours of lecture to prevent child abuse from repeating a crime) is too unreasonable.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor against Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), the court below found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged against Defendant A, even though the facts charged again constituted physical or emotional abuse as shown in the attached Table Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17, 18, 23 through 25, and 29 through 35 as indicated in the judgment of the court below constituted the act of physical or emotional abuse. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles
2) As to Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), Defendant B, although employed by the president Y, actually operated the instant kindergarten by supervising the faculty and staff, etc., constitutes “individual” who is responsible for violating the Child Uniforms Act in accordance with both punishment provisions of Article 74 of the Child Uniforms Act.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant A’s act constitutes an act of abuse or constitutes an intention of abuse according to CCTV images of each of the relevant part concerning each of the facts charged, which occurred from Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17, 18, 18, 23 through 25, and 29 through 35, as indicated in the judgment, based on the CCTV images of each of the relevant part of the facts charged.
Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.
B. Defendant.