beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by C and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C1) The misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not neglect due care and supervision for the prevention of child abuse, and there was no negligence.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor (Defendant A and Defendant B)’s each sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A and Defendant B (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order, 120 hours of community service order, six months of suspended execution, one year of suspended execution, one year of community service order, and 80 hours of community service order) is deemed unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, Defendant C’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court determined that the Defendant was fully aware of the fact that he neglected to exercise due care and supervision over the prevention of child abuse.
① According to each legal statement of the witness A, B, and each interrogation protocol of the defendant A and B, the education provided by the defendant to the joint defendant A and B (hereinafter “joint defendants”) is merely merely a formal one. In other words, the circumstance in which the defendant directly, actively, and practically provided education for the prevention of child abuse does not seem to vary, and only the extent in which the defendant provided the education formally or prepared the place of education through other teachers, external instructors, etc. is recognized.
In the end, it seems that it maintained child abuse prevention education only externally to pass through the supervision of supervisory agencies.
② The Defendant’s direct education of the Defendants directly refers to the degree of time when an inquiry is made, and the content thereof simply refers to the case at other child welfare facilities, which is expected as a matter of course in view of the nature of an inquiry.
Therefore, even if the defendant's inquiry is recognized as a child abuse prevention education, it is still intended to prevent child abuse.