The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact-finding that B and A had a long-standing experience; that there was no problem from parents until the transfer of the instant case; that the Defendant voluntarily installed CCTV to allow parents to access the CCTV to the mobile phone; and that the Defendant provided child abuse education to the employees from time to time, the Defendant did not neglect to exercise due care and supervision over the pertinent business in order to prevent child abuse.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the trial court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts: (i) the Defendant was aware that there are many cases where son was experiencing difficulties in her child care centers adaptation; and (ii) during that process, she did not provide her parents with real-time CCTV images for reasons of the adaptation period from February 24, 2015 to March 31, 2015; (ii) the Defendant appears to have failed to perform her duty of care, such as conducting more strengthened supervision or conducting prevention education to monitor her behavior during the above period; (iii) the assault of her teachers was contingent; and (iv) the Defendant was unable to become aware that she was habitually and repeatedly conducted through a considerable period of time; and (iv) the Defendant was unable to become aware of the fact that she provided her child abuse education to her children.

On March 2014, 2011, 1 year prior to the occurrence of the instant case, Teachers B received education on child abuse at least once.

School Teachers A also provide education for the prevention of child science.