Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not have committed an act identical to the entries in the instant facts charged against the victim, either misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. does not do so for household affairs.

Even if this is limited to the victim's guidance and decoration, and it does not go beyond the scope of teachers' educational rights, it cannot be deemed as an emotional abuse prohibited by the Child Uniforms Act.

2) Even if the sentencing is not unfair, the punishment of the lower judgment (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The form of the lower judgment by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Article 29 of the former Child Reinstatement Act (amended by Act No. 11002, Aug. 4, 201) provides that “an act of abuse that causes bodily harm to a child” shall be prohibited against a child, and Article 17 subparag. 3 of the current Act provides that “an act of emotional abuse that causes harm to the child’s mental health and development” shall be “an act of emotional abuse that causes harm to the child’s mental health and development,” and Article 17 subparag. 3 of the current Act provides that “an act of emotional abuse that causes harm to the child’s mental health and development,” and “an act of emotional abuse that causes harm to the child’s mental health and development,” and Article 17 subparag. 5 of the current Act provides that “an act of emotional abuse that does not cause harm to the child’s mental health and development,” and the language and text of each of the above provisions, etc. shall be construed as an act of emotional abuse and emotional abuse without causing harm to the child’s mental health and physical development.