Technically, yes. But some native English speakers have been arguing here that the -ing verb form before the noun in English sounds a bit awkward. I don't feel it is, but I'm not native English speaker.
I would suggest using the "that" or "who" clauses, but this course is not fully matured yet (so still requires a lot of user-input to get rid of inconsistencies) and this course actually uses the -ing form a lot.
Probably the "non-"crying version makes it even less common in daily use. You can try suggesting it, but I'm not sure it will get accepted.
Native speaker, can confirm that "non crying" sounds weird, even if it is a closer match to how the Korean is constructed. I would still argue for accepting it as a possible answer if only because the point is to learn Korean, not English. Non-crying isn't great English but it demonstrates that you understand the Korean, which is the point of the question.
I am not a Korean language scholar who has walked the night looking for answers. But I am a native English speaker.
Korean language is our goal here. To make Korean from English stick in our minds, the most equivalent English words and grammar need to be honored as well.
Non-crying baby is more than weird. It creates another wall to jump, just like using romanization.
We should stick to closest meaning between this language pair. I know this is extreme to say but it's similar to trying to cloning a raccoon dog from a raccoon.
It interests me more why this is OK in Korean but absurd in English. I see it's accepted now, and am doing my best to non-cry. You can be a quietly crying child, but can you be a not crying child? No, because not modifies only verbs not their participles. You can not be a crying child, and that's all you can be. In the same way it has to be "I do not give presents to crying children." Even closer to how it's understood "I give presents to dry-eyed children." 않다 is a verb, which neither "non-" nor "not" are. American English has devolved to where "don't" serves much the same function, which is perhaps what is causing this. "To be or not to be" -- we don't have an exact antonym for be nor have in our language. This bugs me because I want to say things like this in English. Cry-restraining children? Cry-withholding children? Cry-repressing children? I love "cry-forbearing children" best, but I'm guessing that's the least likely of these to be accepted. Most English speakers disappoint me . . .
As native speaker of English, both of these are awkward.
"Not crying children".
There may be other words where this is acceptable.
"We have a non-binding agreement" might work in place of:
"We have an agreement that does not bind (or tie us) permanently."
These are acceptable English sentences that answer your question:
We do not give presents to children who cry.
We do not give a present to children who cry.
We do not give presents to a child who cries.
We do not give a present to a child who cries.
..... That's proper English. Two ways to make a general reference to gift(s) or present(s). ... give a present to... ... give presents to... .....
We may learn later, that Korean sentences have similar possible translations for other sentences, too.
The question is which is best for this Korean sentence.
not necessarily. In Korean plural can be gained from context. The explicit plural form is not actually required in everyday interactions in order to understand plural. "presents" make more contextual sense then "present" so the plural is implied and does not need to be explicitly marked.