The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant assaulted the victims as stated in the judgment below, but does not habitually assault them, and among them, the defendant's act of receiving the face of the victimized child does not constitute physical abuse as stipulated in the Child Uniforms Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by misapprehending each of the legal principles on habitual assault and physical abuse of child welfare violations (child abuse).

Even if the defendant is found guilty, the sentencing of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Habituality in a crime of misunderstanding the legal principles on habituality refers to any brush and tendency of a criminal. It does not constitute the essence of the act, and it refers to the character that constitutes the offender. Thus, whether habituality exists shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character, occupation, occupation, environment, criminal record, motive, means, method and place of the crime, interval with the crime committed earlier, and similarity with the contents of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176, May 11, 2006). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the court below, namely, even if the defendant was excluded from the criminal record before 2013, the defendant committed several assaults from around April 2014 to the victim D without any justifiable reason, but was not punished by assaulting the victim, and the defendant was a victim who was habitually injured on April 2, 2015.