[Trigger Warning]

Another child abuse case is gaining attention in Korea. The victims were three children who were five-years-old, three-years-old, and three-months-old respectively. Their father, Mr. A, put the three-month-old baby in the freezer because the baby would not stop crying. Mr. A took the baby out of the freezer only after his wife dissuaded him. The father also put the baby's face in running water, holding the child upside down, because the baby had a fever.

During the first trial, the father pled guilty to all the charges and admitted to his actions. The court stated, "This is an unacceptable level in behavior. The victims were all very young and a small exercise in force can put the children in great danger."

According to the judge, Mr. A abused his children in bizarre ways. He physically oppressed his eldest when he was just four years old putting on a Jiu-jitsu move on the child. The father did not release the child for over two minutes even when the child screamed out in agony. The father stated, "I was only teaching my son Jiu-jitsu because I wanted to raise him strongly."

Also according to the court, Mr. A sexually harrassed his daughter who was only three years old at the time. Mr. A would put his daughter on top of his body naked and showed her aroused gestures, in which, his wife stated that her husband would physically abuse her as well if she stopped him from committing such actions.

The man stated, "I never thought sexually of my daughter," however, that argument was not accepted by the court. During the first trial, the judge stated, "Mr. A continuously committed crimes forgetting his role and duty as a father and husband. The abuse on the children seems to have had a significant and negative ripple effect on the normal growth of the children."

However, to everyone's surprise, Mr. A was not sent to prison. The court ruled a suspended sentence of three years of probation in which he will serve penal servitude of two years and six months if he violates the probation. The court's reason for such a ruling is the family's livelihood is at stake. The court stated that "Although Mr. A was already divorced before the ruling, he needs to fulfill his duties as a father to the children. Therefore, he must return to society and pay for child support."

There has been a restraining order against the father so he does not come in contact with his children or his ex-wife but will have to provide child support in the future.