The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment with prison labor, one hundred and twenty hours of community service, and forty hours of lecture for prevention of child abuse) is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.

In particular, it is necessary to issue an employment restriction order to prevent recidivism.

2. The number of the accused’s child abuse crimes reaches 29 times, and in particular, the degree of physical abuse in the case of some crimes is not weak.

The crime of this case seems to have influenced the development of victimized children.

However, the defendant is the first offender, and he recognizes and reflects his criminal act from the beginning of the investigation without a vindication, and he currently does not work in child welfare facilities.

The degree of physical abuse is difficult to be justified even if the purpose of decoration is the subject of decoration. However, a number of crimes appears to have started for the purpose of decoration (except for the second crimes in attached Table 29 of the judgment below, it is difficult to confirm the exact circumstances due to the failure to make a statement of damage). Furthermore, nine parents from among the victimized children do not want punishment explicitly or do not want to do so.

was stated.

In addition, compared to the original judgment, there is no change in sentencing conditions that can be newly considered by this court.

When comprehensively considering the Defendant’s age, sex, criminal records, environment, motive and background leading up to the commission of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment, including the exemption of employment restriction orders, is within the reasonable scope of discretion.

However, it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unfasible.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.