Yonhap News
[[B1]] A woman in her 30s living at a shelter for single mothers has been acquitted of child abuse charges after striking the back of a 33-month-old boy who had pushed her 15-month-old daughter to the ground. The court found that, taking into account the circumstances, the part of the body struck, the number of blows and their force, the act was difficult to regard as physical abuse severe enough to harm the child’s health or development.
[[B2]] According to legal sources on the 18th, Ji Chang-gu, a senior judge at the Suwon District Court’s Criminal Division 2, acquitted the woman, identified only as A, who had been indicted for violating the Child Welfare Act.
[[B3]] A, who was living with her daughter at a shelter for single mothers in Suwon, Gyeonggi Province, was indicted on charges of striking the back of the 33-month-old boy once with her left hand at around 6:40 p.m. on Feb. 15 last year, in a playroom at the facility.
[[B4]] At the time, A’s daughter was 15 months old. According to the court, the boy was larger and stronger than A’s daughter, and had grabbed both of the girl’s hands at the top of a slide before pushing her hard to the ground. A, who witnessed this, approached the boy and struck him once on the back, the investigation found.
[[B5]] Prosecutors viewed A’s action as abuse inflicted on the child’s body and brought the case to trial. A, for her part, argued during the proceedings that she had no intent to abuse the child.
[[B6]] While the court acknowledged that A had struck the boy, it found the act did not amount to physical abuse prohibited under the Child Welfare Act.
[[B7]] “The defendant struck the child on the back, and only once, and even from the CCTV footage the force of the blow does not appear strong,” Ji said.
[[B8]] A red mark was found on the boy’s back shortly after the incident, but the court also found it difficult to conclude that it had been caused by A’s action.
[[B9]] Considering the degree of impact A applied, the court found there was doubt as to whether the red mark had resulted from the act, and that even if it had been caused by A’s blow, it was possible the mark appeared because the child’s skin was very delicate.
[[B10]] Accordingly, the court found that the submitted evidence alone made it difficult to conclude that A’s action was an abusive act that created a risk of harming the child’s physical health or normal development, and handed down a verdict of not guilty.