All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) did not have committed emotional abuse causing harm to the mental health and development of victims, who are children.

In addition, the defendant withdrawn on February 5, 2012 KRW 571,420 (the first instance judgment No. 1) and the same year.

3. The amount of KRW 4,224,00 that was withdrawn on 31.31 (paragraph 3 of the year table of crime in the original judgment) was used for the Defendant’s unpaid benefits, overtime allowances, job-based benefits, etc., which is only used for the original purpose of the subsidy, but is not useful.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges that the Defendant abused victims and misappropriated each of the above subsidies based on the statements of the lower court witnessO, N, and P, which lack credibility, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor for eight months (two years of suspension of execution of sentence) and 160 hours of community service on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment)’s sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the fact that each statement of the lower court witnessO, N, and P is consistent with the contents of the statement from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, the major part of the statement coincides with each other, it is sufficient to make a statement without experience, and it seems that there is no probability that the Defendant may make a false statement disadvantageous to the Defendant in light of the relationship with the Defendant, etc., it is credibility.

However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including part of the testimony of the court below U.S. witness, the defendant was placed in a scheme on the ground that the defendant was a victim F, H, and J, who is merely a infant, and the defendant committed the defendant's drinking to the head of the victims.