The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the prosecutor's appeal summary of CCTV video recording (misunderstanding of facts) the following facts: (a) the defendant was forced to wear the head E of the victimized child E that is being boomed to unboomed by hand; (b) then put the victimized child into the affected child's entrance, and then put the affected child's entrance, which is continuously boomed into the affected child's entrance; and (c) 3 to 4 times the core part of the victimized child due to his fingers can be confirmed; (d) the victimized child was forced to do his refusal to do his physical movement; (c) in light of the fact that the victimized child was forced to do his mental health and development, it may be deemed that it is a case where the mental health and development of the victimized child is impeded, or there is a risk or possibility of causing such a result; and (d) the defendant's act of entering the victimized child's injury as a child care center in the investigation agency can be found to have been caused by the Defendant's emotional abuse of the victimized child.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.

2. Article 17 subparag. 5 of the Child Uniforms Act provides that “ emotional abuse that causes harm to the mental health and development of a child” refers to an act of emotional abuse or emotional abuse without accompanying the exercise of tangible power, but does not reach the physical damage. This includes not only where the mental health and normal development of a child is practically impeded, but also where the risk or possibility of causing such a result arises (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do13488, Dec. 23, 2015). In addition, the Child Welfare Act provides that the child welfare law.