The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and for one year, for Defendant B.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to murder of a baby), Defendant A was born in a house toilet where it is difficult to take immediate medical measures, namely, the victim who was only 23 weeks of the birth period, and even if the Defendant took relief measures against the victim.

Even if it is not proved that the victim is alive, the causal relationship is not recognized between the omission of the defendant who left the victim and the death of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (five years of imprisonment, ten years of employment restriction order for children) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant A left the victim in a toilet variable water, thereby resulting in the victim’s death.

1) From May 18, 2019 to the date of the occurrence of the instant case, Defendant A was able to find out that it was difficult to take measures for the survival of a baby if the fetus was born while the fetus was living and was born at the home. However, the victim was born at the home, even though it was clearly anticipated that it would be difficult to take measures for the survival of the baby if the fetus was living.

2) Defendant A clearly perceived the victim’s life with the victim’s sound mind immediately after childbirth. Defendant A, through his family members or 119, was able to take appropriate medical measures to care of the victim to the hospital.