The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, did not have a victim, and even if it is acknowledged that he was at the time of committing a person suffering from family affairs, the Defendant’s act does not constitute “treatment” under the Child Reinstatement Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant of the instant facts charged: (a) from January 2014 to February 2014, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant’s “E Child Care Center” operated by the Defendant on the Do1, Seogu-gu, Seo-gu D1 level, the Defendant abused the victim’s body by causing bodily harm to the victim, such as causing the victim’s injury to the victim’s victim (hereinafter “E Child Care Center”), on the ground that the victim F (F, 3 years of age), who is the birth of the said Child Care Center, continuously bullyings other friendships attending the said Child Care Center (30cm in length).

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the basis of each of the evidence indicated in its holding.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the Defendant is fully recognized as having committed the victim as shown in the instant facts charged.

① In relation to the instant case, G, the parent of the child care center of this case, testified in the lower court that the Defendant appeared to have observed the victim’s hand floor.

② In addition, the instant case is also recognized that G sent a Kakao message to the effect that the Defendant was at the time of the victim’s mother.

③ At the time of the instant case, K used as a teacher in the child-care center at the lower court stated in the lower court that the Defendant was present in the presence of the victim at the time of the instant case, and that the body was in contact with the victim.