beta
Text
Defendant
B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant B (ten months of imprisonment and 80 hours of order to complete a child abuse treatment program) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the legal principle [the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes against Defendant A (Crimes among the school expenses for children, etc. who are engaged in child welfare facilities)] although an employer punished under the two punishment provisions of Article 74 of the Child Uniforms Act falls under the scope of Article 7 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes against Defendant A (Punishment among the school expenses for children, etc. who are engaged in child welfare facilities) by deeming that the above Article 7 is not applicable. Thus, the lower
2) Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: fine of KRW 8,00,000) against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles
A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the ground that Article 7 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Offenses is merely an aggravated provision by up to 1/2 of the punishment for a child who is protected by a person liable to report child abuse, and thus, the “user, etc. punished by both penal provisions” rather than the “person who committed child abuse” is not subject to the above 7, and thus, acquitted Defendant A of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (Punishment of Child Welfare Employees, etc.).
B. The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below's judgment, and the court below's decision is justified in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.
(c).