[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The convictions of childcare teachers prosecuted for habitual abuse of children at a daycare center in Gumi-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do have been finalized.
The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cho Jae-yeon) on the 2nd upheld the original sentences in the appeals of childcare teachers A and B, who were charged with violating the Child Abuse Punishment Act, sentencing A to 8 months in prison with a 2-year probation and B to 1 year in prison with a 2-year probation.
The court stated the reason for dismissing the appeals, saying, "There is no error in the original judgment that found the defendants guilty without failing to conduct necessary hearings, nor in violating the rules of logic and experience or exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, and no misinterpretation of the legal principles concerning 'physical abuse' and 'emotional abuse' as defined in Article 17, Items 3 and 5 of the Child Welfare Act."
A and B worked as childcare teachers at a home-based daycare center located in an apartment in Gumi-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, and were prosecuted for physically and emotionally abusing children aged 1 to 3 years old more than 200 times between June and August 2018.
A is accused of leaving a child who sat down crying after being scolded unattended for 3 minutes, then grabbing both arms to take the child to the playroom, roughly placing the child on the floor, and pulling the arms again to move the child to a CCTV blind spot, among a total of 217 instances of abuse.
B is accused of emotionally abusing children by forcibly lifting a pillow from a child lying down during nap time and pulling the child's shoulder, among a total of 277 instances of abuse.
During the trial, both denied the charges, but the first trial court found that A and B habitually committed physical and emotional abuse against the victim children 67 and 90 times respectively, sentencing each to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 3-year probation.
The court also ordered 80 hours of community service, 40 hours of child abuse treatment lectures, and a 5-year employment ban at child-related institutions for both.
Article 7 of the Child Abuse Punishment Act (Aggravated Punishment for Workers at Child Welfare Facilities, etc.) stipulates that when a person obligated to report child abuse, such as a daycare center director or childcare staff, commits a child abuse crime against a child under their care, the punishment shall be increased up to half of the prescribed sentence.
The court found that ▲ acts of applying physical force to the victim children without any childcare or disciplinary purpose in a manner that does not respect their dignity ▲ acts such as pushing important parts of the victim children's bodies, including the head, with feet, which pose a risk of hindering the normal mental development of the victim children ▲ even if discipline was necessary, the intensity of physical force or the irritable attitude toward the victim children was excessively violent and rough, exceeding the limits of discipline.
The court stated, "Considering the manner and degree of the defendants' acts toward the victim children, the circumstances leading to those acts, and the victims' reactions, it can be recognized that the defendants' acts constitute emotional and physical abuse of the victim children."
In the second trial, where both A, B, and the prosecution appealed, some of the criminal facts recognized as guilty in the first trial were acquitted.
The court recognized guilt for 38 out of 67 criminal facts for A and 76 out of 90 for B that were found guilty in the first trial.
While partially accepting A and B's claims of factual and legal errors, the court rejected the prosecution's claims of factual errors and excessive sentencing.
Ultimately, the second trial court sentenced A to 8 months in prison with a 2-year probation and B to 1 year in prison with a 2-year probation. Unlike the first trial, the court did not impose community service but ordered 40 hours of child abuse treatment lectures. The employment ban at child-related institutions was also reduced from 5 years to 2 years.
The act of A not comforting a crying child for 3 minutes, then grabbing both arms to move the child to another room, roughly placing the child on the floor, and pulling the arms again was not considered abuse, unlike in the first trial.
The court cited as reasons for mitigation ▲ many of the abusive acts did not seriously harm the health, welfare, or normal development of the victim children considering the motivation, circumstances, degree, manner of the acts, and the children's reactions ▲ the classroom where the children were cared for was about 3 pyeong (approx. 9.9 square meters), an inadequate facility for 10-11 children and 2 childcare teachers ▲ the poor physical environment somewhat influenced the abusive acts ▲ the defendants had no prior criminal records.
Regarding the facts acquitted in contrast to the first trial, the court stated, "Although there were inappropriate disciplinary acts such as pushing the victim children's bodies or lightly tapping their heads with feet, the intensity was not strong enough to cause mental or physical health risks."
It added, "Some light physical force was used for disciplinary purposes, and in childcare environments where multiple children must be put to sleep or fed simultaneously, such acts may be somewhat unavoidable."
The Supreme Court also found no problem with the second trial's judgment and dismissed the appeals of A and B.
Meanwhile, the daycare center director C, who failed to properly manage these childcare teachers, was prosecuted for violating the Child Welfare Act and the Infant Care Act for fraudulently receiving subsidies from Gumi City Hall. C was fined 8 million won in the first trial, appealed, and was fined 5 million won in the second trial. C did not appeal further, finalizing the 5 million won fine imposed by the second trial.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
