A. Part of fraud related to kindergarten meal cost - Defendant AC, AA, BS, BS, BU, BV, BW, BX, BY, BY, andCC (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant president”) received meal cost in excess of meal cost from Defendant A, B, and parents, and Defendant president received the difference from Defendant A, B, and Defendant A, a food material supplier, etc., without notifying that the difference was returned, and received all of the received meal cost. The victim acquired the victim’s property by deceiving the victim’s property.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Part concerning fraud related to the meal cost of a child care center and the violation of the Infant Protection Act - The charges against Defendant A, B, R, and CDs, and Defendant X, B, UB, UB, BT, BF, BD, VI, N, BZ, CA, and CB (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant president”) have to use the remainder of the Defendants except Defendant A and B for actual expenses, such as purchase of food materials, and report the details of the use of the meal cost to the competent Gun/Gu office. Therefore, in consideration of the accounting standards of the meal cost, a child care center operator is obliged to notify the guardian of the details of the use of the meal cost and the difference between the appropriate amount of meal cost and the amount of meal cost on the basis thereof.

In addition, childcare fees for one childcare center are not immediately supported by the local government to the operator of the childcare center, but if it is supported by the individual guardian, the guardian will pay childcare fees received through the child care card to the childcare center.

Therefore, the president of the defendant A, B.