The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts and legal principles, the defendant D (14) who was the defendant's son, was found to have committed an act of blocking and preventing the defendant from leaving the door in order to avoid a sloping way (hereinafter "the issues of this case"), which is the defendant's external grandchild, (2). Although this constitutes "an act of damaging a child's body" under the former part of Article 17 subparagraph 3 of the Child Uniforms Act, the court below erred in finding the defendant not guilty of the charges of violating the Child Uniforms Act on the ground that the court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles that the defendant did not "an act of damaging a child's body".

B. The lower court, without examining whether the instant case’s instant act constitutes “physical abuse that may harm the physical health and development of children” as prescribed in the latter part of Article 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Uniforms Act, found the Defendant not guilty of charges of violating the Act on the part of the Child Uniforms, without examining whether the instant act constitutes “physical abuse that may harm the physical health and development of children.”

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of suspended sentence, three years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and non-performance of reasons

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, “an act of damaging a child’s body” under the former part of Article 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Uniforms Act refers to an act of causing a negative physical change to the extent equivalent thereto even if the physical integrity is damaged or the degree of “injury” which impedes a physiological function by exercising physical force against a child’s body (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do6781, May 12, 2016). However, according to the evidence adopted by the lower court, the Defendant did the instant case’s key act.