The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The co-defendant A, who was working as a teacher of a child-care center in the summary of the grounds for appeal, committed wrong actions as stated in the lower judgment, but the Defendant, as the head of a child-care center, exercised due care and supervision to prevent child abuse.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by mistake.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant asserted the same content as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court stated the Defendant’s above assertion as follows, and convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

① In addition, the Defendant did not take any measures to witness A’s inappropriate behavior while taking care of Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) of the lower court co-defendant A (hereinafter “A”) in which the Defendant had a dead group leadered in 2016, and did not take any measures to witness A’s child abuse on October 11, 2016.

(2) The defendant was not aware of child abuse A, even though he/she continued to engage in child abuse for at least one month.

The statement was made, and it was recognized that A's behavior was an saved behavior without distinguishing the child savement and child savement of infant care teachers.

③ The Defendant operated CCTV to prevent the victims from viewing CCTV immediately after the occurrence of the instant case.

(4) The Defendant’s education for the prevention of child abuse does not seem to have been provided to infant care teachers without providing them with education for the prevention of child abuse and sexual violence, etc.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, i.e., child care centers operated by the Defendant, e., the victimized child, among children subject to child abuse.