The sentence of each sentence shall be suspended against the Defendants.

A. Regarding the fact that subsidies are denied by misapprehending the legal principles, the period during which the Defendants were appointed as a statutory childcare teacher on August 16, 2013 and the Defendants failed to meet the statutory childcare teacher ratio from August 1, 2013 to August 15, 2013, and according to the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s publication of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, if teachers are employed within one month from the date of the violation, the basic childcare fee for the pertinent month can be retroactively provided in the following month. In this case, the Defendants were appointed as infant care teacher within one month from August 1, 2013, which is the date of the violation, and thus, the subsidies cannot be deemed to have been denied. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that denied subsidies from August 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the Defendants’ provision of subsidies from childcare teachers to the extent that they did not meet the statutory childcare teacher ratio from August 13, 2015, 2013.

However, Article 54(2) of the Infant Care Act, which is the penal provision of the instant punishment, provides for the punishment of “a case where subsidies are granted by fraud or other improper means.” As long as the Defendants were granted subsidies by means of obtaining a certificate of G’s license and allowing the Defendants to meet the percentage of statutory infant care teachers, the establishment of the above crime even if the Defendants met the requirements for retroactive support within one month after employing teachers.