logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.03.23 2016노5432
아동학대범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(아동복지시설종사자등의아동학대)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts) is consistent with the victim E (5 years) in the art room of the underground floor of a kindergarten;

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s appearance or the victim’s failure to accurately explain the grounds facing the victim’s life is natural phenomenon in light of the victim’s age; (b) there was no fact that the victim, other than the artist’s art life, had the victim prepare for returning home; and (c) according to the field CCTV images, the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim, such as what was written in the facts charged, by allowing the victim in preparation for returning home to himself/herself, and by allowing him/her to confirm his/her status.

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. The lower court determined: ① in relation to the E’s statement process, in light of the fact that, around the time of the E’s video recording, E had already undergone an investigation into the instant case in face with a police officer, and the police officer who conducted the investigation at the time asked E directly to “E was why,” the police officer’s video recording statement could not be ruled out the possibility that the E’s video recording could have been contaminated through the police officer’s investigation process; ② in relation to the investigator’s questioning contents and the attitude of the investigator’s statement, E responded responded to the purport that he did not have any way at a kindergarten on several occasions on the basis of the contents of the instant case, from the E’s mother, the investigator provided several occasions to E on the basis of the contents of the case.

‘A’ or “A’ of the child-care center

Jina, “Linama Linaman Linson”, and “Linamasonn M. M.

If the decision is made, the decision shall be made.

It appears that he had expressed his attitude to induce E to answer by asking questions as “,” and that he was born later.

arrow