A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal record] On February 9, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court on August 2018, and that judgment became final and conclusive on February 20, 2018.

[2] On January 30, 2017, the Defendant, while taking extracurricular classes against the victimized child D (8 years old) at the Defendant’s personal office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul building and the Defendant’s personal office located in subparagraph C around January 30, 2017, caused the victimized child to commit an assault by her mar in a wooden mar, on the ground that the victimized child was made a false mar, and thereafter, committed physical abuse that may harm the physical health and development of the victimized child over four occasions, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Recording records or stenographic records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of injuries;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Article 71 (1) 2 and subparagraph 3 of Article 17 of the Act on the Place of Punishment for Children and the Place of Punishment for the Crime (Selection of Imprisonment);

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 8(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Offenses by Ordering Education

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that each act of the defendant constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social norms. Thus, even in a case where a teacher instructs students by a method other than discipline, education needs to be required as well as in the case of disciplinary action. In particular, an act of assault and bathing against a student is allowed only when it is inevitable for education, i.e., it was impossible to correct other educational means for the purpose of correcting a student's wrong words, and only when the method and degree of such act have objective validity that can be acceptable in light of social norms, it can be viewed as a justifiable act under the law (Supreme Court Decision 200Do5380 delivered on June 10, 200).