beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant merely inflicted an injury on the victimized child at the level of a decoration, and cannot be evaluated as abuse under the Child Welfare Act. As such, the charge of violation of the Child Reinstatement Act (child abuse) among the facts charged in the instant case should be pronounced not guilty.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to: (a) an adult, including the guardian of a child’s class, does harm to the child’s health or welfare or commits physical, mental, sexual or cruel acts that may impede the normal development of the child; and (b) a child’s guardian abandons or abandons the child.
“.......”
In the Criminal Act, the law of the branch of a child shall protect the child's health and welfare, while the law of the branch of the child shall protect the child's health and welfare. The law of the branch of the child shall protect the child's health and welfare, while the law of the branch of the child shall protect only the person under 18 years of age (i.e., the child) in the law of the branch of the child's uniforms. Considering these differences, the concept of abuse under the Child Welfare Act is not narrow, and rather, the concept of abuse under the Act on the Protection of Children is not required to protect the child under 18 years of age because the statutory punishment for the crime of violation of Article 17 subparagraph 3 of the branch of the child's uniforms is higher than the statutory punishment for the crime of the school violence under the Criminal Act.
As such, it is reasonable to interpret the concept of abuse under the Child Welfare Act more broadly than the concept of abuse under the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do6015, Oct. 13, 201). 2) In light of the specific legal principle of determination, the Defendant is drinking on the ground that the victim who is a child was not concentrated in the class, as stated in the judgment of the court below.