The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not look at the front of the Victim F, and did not look at the victim E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. “Habituality” under Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes by misunderstanding the legal doctrine (hereinafter “Child Abuse Punishment Act”) is applicable only where a person who habitually commits a child abuse under Article 2 Subparag. 4(a) through (m) of the same Act commits a second child abuse crime.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below found the defendant as the habitual nature of Article 6 of the Child Education Response Act even if a person who has a simple habit of violence committed a crime under Article 2 subparagraph 4 (a) of the same Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the habitual recognition under the Child Education Response Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

In light of the victims' age and relationship with the defendant, the defendant's ordinary habits, etc., the victims are less likely to make a false statement when considering the victims' age, the relationship with the victim, the defendant's ordinary habits, etc.

Since the above statement of the victims can be seen as reliable.

In addition, since the victim's side pictures, diagnosis reports, etc. conform to the victim's statements and facts charged, it is recognized that there is a causal relationship between the defendant's assault and the victim's injury.

Therefore, this case.