The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the gist of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misapprehension of the legal principle), the defendant's emotional abuse is recognized, and emotional abuse does not necessarily require the purpose or intent of child abuse. Thus, the defendant's emotional abuse is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant intentionally committed an act as described in the facts charged in the instant case.

In light of the above, the defendant was acquitted, which was erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment was sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant intentionally acted as described in the instant facts charged, solely with the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, after going through a citizen’s participation trial.

It is difficult to see

On the other hand, the defendant is judged not guilty.

B. (1) Article 17 of the Child Uniforms Land Act provides for “ emotional abuse that harms the mental health and development of a child” as one of the prohibited acts against a child.

The phrase “ emotional abuse that causes harm to the mental health and development of a child” prohibited by the Act refers to a juristic person established with the aim of guaranteeing the welfare of a child so that the Child Welfare Act may grow up soundly and safely by born a child healthy (Article 2 Subparag. 2). The basic ideology of the Child Welfare Act is to consider the interests of a child first in all activities pertaining to a child (Article 2 Subparag. 2). The Child Welfare Act provides “child abuse” as “the physical, mental, sexual violence or cruel acts that may cause harm to a child’s health or welfare or impede normal development of a child, and that a child’s protector abandons or abandons the child.”