영유아보육법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. A summary of grounds for appeal shall be deemed that B provided services and administrative services to a child-care center outside a classroom shall be deemed to have performed the role of a teacher in charge efficiently through division of services with other teachers;
2. According to Article 36 of the Infant and Child Care Act and Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree thereof, child care teachers shall be “former” and shall not concurrently hold other duties and work for eight hours a day in principle, and on the premise of such provision, they shall provide subsidies to infant care teachers.
In this regard, according to the results of the examination of evidence by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant and B directly prepared a written confirmation to the effect that, at the time of conducting the on-site investigation in Chuncheon, they “B had been registered as a counter-fluence teacher of this Decree, but actually performed only administrative affairs and did not perform childcare duties.”
In addition to the circumstances properly explained by the court below, it is difficult to see that B performed duties as infant care teachers mainly with administrative matters and it is hard to see that B performed duties as infant care teachers.
The defendant's assertion is difficult to accept, unless infant care is transferred.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.