All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The victim's statement concerning the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is overfinite and lacks credibility.

The physical punishment by the defendant against the victim is only kneel kneel or is only one time buckbucks of the victim.

No defendant's act shall be deemed a physical abuse under the Child Welfare Act.

Considering the fact that the legal representative of the victim asked the victim to spawn, and that the victim had been constantly aware of the defendant's birth even after the instant case, the victim did not feel the victim's behavior due to abuse, and there was no intention of child abuse against the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, etc.) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Considering the fact that the act of the defendant in violation of the employment restriction order was conducted to correct the delinquency of the victim, the victim was aware of the defendant's body punishment and scambling the defendant's scam, etc., this case constitutes “where the risk of re-offenders is significantly low or where there is any special circumstance that does not restrict employment” under the proviso of Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision is unreasonable to restrict the defendant's employment for three years against the child-related agencies.

A victim of mistake of facts as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below by the prosecutor has consistently stated this part of the facts charged.

The victim has a passive and passive nature due to exposure to sexual damage by the defendant, and the fact that the victim's attitude of statement was not active should also be considered in determining the credibility of the victim's statement.

Opinions of child statement analysis experts shall be made.