The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the degree and side of the injury of the victimized child caused by the summary of the grounds for appeal, even though the Defendants did not immediately transfer the victimized child to the hospital, or at least had an active duty to take measures to protect and treat the victimized child at a place other than the adult awareness who does not contact the victimized child, it is reasonable to deem the Defendants to have committed an act of neglecting the victimized child prohibited by the Child Welfare Act.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the act of neglect as prescribed by the Child Welfare Act.

2. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged while clearly explaining the grounds for its determination.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendants' act was committed an act prohibited by the Child Welfare Act, and it cannot be deemed that this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to mistake of facts or the Child Welfare Act, as alleged by the prosecutor, in the judgment below that acquitted the Defendants of

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.