The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

For the defendant, 40 hours of child abuse.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant - misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and unfair sentencing 1) Violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (child abuse), and violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abandonment or neglect), or misunderstanding of the legal principles, or misunderstanding of the facts as to the crime (child abandonment or neglect), the Defendant was hicking the victim’s losses in front of the victim’s chest by using a scrush to “a special brut that was put up before the chest by scrupting the victim’s losses.”

The defendant's act does not constitute child abuse, and the defendant did not have the intention of child abuse.

B) The Defendant was aware of the fact that the victim was able to take part in the process that he was able to report without force, and did not expect that he would have been able to die. The Defendant was able to make the victim take part in the process of stabilizing the victim’s status so that the victim could take part in the process of protecting the victim’s status more.

The defendant's act does not constitute a child abandonment or neglect, and the defendant did not have the intention of abandonment or neglect of the child.

C) The facts constituting the crime of assault of this case, the violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse), and the violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abandonment or neglect) are identical to the basic facts, and thus, constitute an ordinary concurrent crime, the lower court determined that the crime was committed as a substantive concurrent crime.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete the course) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor - The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, whether the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of violating the Child Uniforms Act (child abuse), the Defendant’s act of cutting the victim’s chest over the victim’s chest may injure the child’s body or body.