The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of legal principles) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant was abandoned or neglected by failing to take measures to ensure proper treatment of the ward, who is a ward, for the injury, without properly examining D.

However, since the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a caregiver who works for the victim D (n,e.g., 84 years of age) of the aged hospitalized in Dongducheon-si C.

No person shall abandon any older person under his/her protection and supervision, or neglect the basic protection and medical treatment, including food, clothing and shelter.

Nevertheless, from September 17, 2016 to September 25, 2016, the Defendant neglected to take necessary measures for the treatment of injury, such as visiting the hospital, guiding the responsible provider to allow the victim to receive proper treatment, etc., despite the fact that the victim, who is the aged under his/her protection and supervision at the above center, suffered from the injury incurred during about 16 weeks from the right-hand extraction and hole abandonment for the reason of infertility, the Defendant left the victim by being accompanied by himself/herself so that the victim can receive proper treatment.

3. The lower court’s judgment, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, does not recognize the Defendant’s intention of neglect that he did not take necessary measures for the treatment of injury, and in addition, it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s other caregivers, in light of the following: (a) the time when the victim was injured is accurately unclear; and (b) the victim’s injury was not proven to have occurred during the Defendant’s working hours; and (c) whether the Defendant was aware of the victim’s injury.