1. Article 74 of the former Child Uniforms Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014) provides that “If a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation or an individual commits an offense under Article 71 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions.

Provided, That this shall not apply where a corporation or an individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such violation.

"........"

The issue of whether a corporation, employee, etc. neglected the duty of due care or supervision in relation to the pertinent violation should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances related to the pertinent violation, namely, the legislative purport of the relevant Act, the degree of infringement of legal interests anticipated to violate the penal provisions, the purport of formulating both punishment provisions concerning the relevant violation, as well as the specific form of the relevant violation and the degree of damage or result actually caused thereby, the business size of the corporation, the possibility of supervision or specific direction and supervision over the offender, and the measures actually taken by the corporation to prevent the violation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5824, Feb. 25, 2010). The lower court cannot be readily concluded that Defendant A neglected to exercise due care and supervision over the relevant duties on account of the circumstances in its reasoning.

On the other hand, the first instance judgment convicting Defendant A of violation of the Child Uniforms Act among the facts charged in the instant case was reversed and acquitted.

Examining the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the principle of free evaluation of evidence violates logical and empirical rules.