The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (hereinafter “Child Abuse Punishment Act”) provides that “Child abuse crimes shall mean child abuse by their protectors, which falls under any of the following:

The article 271(1) of the Criminal Code is listed.

Article 4 (Death Resulting from Child Abuse) Item 4 A of Article 2.

Items C through C.

A person who commits a crime of child abuse shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than five years, if he/she causes the death of a child.

In this case where a charge was instituted against “child abuse by abandonment” as prescribed in Articles 4 and 2 subparag. 4 (b) of the Child Abuse Punishment Act and Article 271(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of taking the victim E (the second son of the Defendant) who was born later than 3 months of his/her death constituted a crime of mixing with the victim E (the second son of the Defendant), and returned home again more than twice until the next day, and not only did he/she drink or drink the victim, but also did not confirm the victim’s condition for 15 hours and 30 minutes, but also did not look at the victim’s condition. However, even though the result of autopsy on the victim was not clear, the possibility that the victim died because the victim’s body and the son were kept intact and her body cannot be ruled out, and that the victim’s act of leaving the victim’s body and body cannot be protected by the victim’s act of leaving the victim’s body for a limited period of time.

The judgment below

The reasoning of this case is duly adopted by relevant legal principles and legal principles.