2015No492 Child Welfare Violation

A person shall be appointed.

Residence

Reference domicile

Defendant

Moves (prosecutions) and tears (Public Trial)

Attorney Park Do-young

Suwon District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 2594 Decided January 30, 2015

August 21, 2015

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

Although the defendant was at the time and place of punch block as stated in the facts charged, he was found guilty of the facts charged in this case on a different premise, even though he was merely a relative with the head of a child-care center, and did not have any intent to abuse the Dong, on the contrary, even though he was merely a relative with the head of the child-care center in the course of practice for the preparation of recompeachment of the child-care center, it was erroneous in the judgment of the court below that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal

Article 1 of the former Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the purpose of this Act is to guarantee the welfare of a child so that the child can grow healthy and happyly and safely," and Article 2 of the same Act provides that "the child shall grow well in a stable family environment for the development of perfect and harmonious personality (Article 2)." The basic ideology of this Act is to provide that "The interest of the child shall be first considered in all activities related to the child (Article 3 (3)." Meanwhile, Article 3 (7) provides that "child abuse" refers to physical, mental, sexual or cruel acts that may harm the child's health and welfare or undermine the normal development of the child by adults, including his/her guardian, and that the child's abandonment and neglect are made by his/her guardian."

In addition, Article 17 of the same Act, as a prohibited act against a child, "the act of abuse that causes damage to a child's body" in subparagraph 3 of Article 17 of the same Act, provides for "B" and separately "the act of emotional abuse that causes harm to the mental health and development of a child" in subparagraph 5 of the same Article, and in light of the language and text of each of the above provisions, the act of subparagraph 5 refers to the act of emotional abuse that does not entail the exercise of tangible power but does not cause any physical damage (see Supreme Court Decision 201156015, Oct. 13, 201).

In light of the legislative purport and basic principles of the Act, it is reasonable to see that the above act of the defendant's mental health and mental abuse was no longer likely to be affected by his or her own mental health and the following circumstances, i.e., the defendant's act of using his or her own mental health and mental health care center at the time of his or her high risk of harm or harm to his or her own health, and thus, the defendant's act of using his or her own mental health and mental health care center at the time of his or her high risk of harm or harm to his or her own health, and thus, it is highly probable that the above act of the defendant's mental health and mental abuse was no longer likely to be affected by his or her own mental health and development, and that the defendant's act of using the same type as his or her own mental health care center was no more likely to have been affected by his or her mental health and development, and thus, it is more likely that his or her act of using the same mental health care center at the time of the following day.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. (However, the "Child Welfare Act" in the "Application of the Act" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the former Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014). Thus, it is obvious that the "Child Welfare Act" is a clerical error in the former Child Welfare Act. Thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.

Judges shall be selected from the presiding judge -

Judges Kim Byung-ju

Judge Lee Young-young