The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the contents of a statement made by the victimized child F (hereinafter “victim”) on the facts of damage to the father of the victimized child after the crime, the situation of the victimized child, and CCTV images, etc., the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts of physical abuse, even though the Defendant divided the part of the victimized child’s view and the part as stated in the facts charged, as in the facts charged, and found the Defendant not guilty. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending

2. According to the CCTV images duly adopted and examined by the evidence, the court below held that: (a) according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, i.e., ① the Defendant did not confirm the right side and the part of the CCTV images taken by the victim; (b) the Defendant appears to have engaged in an act to look at the victim as a child care teacher by leaving the victim’s body, etc. in front of the victim; (c) upon receiving the report on the crime of this case, the police visited D and perused CCTV images; and (d) according to the opinion prepared by the doctor who provided medical treatment for the victim on the day of this case, it can be recognized that the “the blood transfusion occurred” on the face of the victim; (e) the possibility that the blood transfusion that the victim occurred to the victim was seriously malicious, and in particular, the above intention was limited to the face of the victim, and (e) the Defendant appears to have not been able to do so at the right side of the face of the victim.