The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, two years of probation, 400 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of order to attend a lecture) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

B. (1) Defendant (1) was guilty of mistake of facts in the facts charged of the instant case, even though the Defendant provided the child victim with basic education corresponding to the elementary school and middle school education process, due to the misunderstanding of facts, and the victim’s sexual misconduct, escape, etc. was not sent to the elementary school or middle school.

(2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant prior to their judgment.

A. On April 1, 2008, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case that the Defendant neglected to provide basic education to the victimized children due to failure to send the victimized children to the elementary school and middle school, and accordingly punished by applying Article 71(1)2 and Article 17 Subparag. 6 of the Child Welfare Act. However, the act of neglecting education before the enforcement of the former Child Welfare Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11002, Aug. 4, 201; effective from August 5, 2012) was not included in the subject of punishment, while the act of neglecting education was included only in the subject of punishment, and Article 71(1)2 and Article 17 Subparag. 6 of the former Child Welfare Act was included in the subject of punishment, and Article 5 of the former Addenda of the Child Welfare Act of the Child Welfare Act applied the penal provisions to the acts before the enforcement of this Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the charge from April 1, 2008 to August 4, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case.