(1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Act No. 10916, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter “former Private Teaching Institutes Act”) provides that “private teaching institutes” shall provide for teaching knowledge, techniques (including skills) and arts to not less than the number of learners determined by Presidential Decree, or provide facilities as learning places for not less than 30 days (excluding facilities provided for in each item of the same subparagraph, such as early childhood Education Act; hereinafter the same shall apply) according to Article 2-2 by classifying them into private teaching institutes for lifelong education or vocational training; 2. Teaching institutes for young children and disabled persons under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by classifying them into private teaching institutes and private teaching institutes for lifelong education or vocational training; 3. Teaching schools for each type of curriculum referred to in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 3.

In full view of the contents of the relevant laws and regulations, a private teaching institute that teaches young children pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Early Childhood Education Act shall not be classified as one of the practical foreign languages, music, art, dance, and reading rooms, if it teaches knowledge, techniques, and arts, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a private teaching institute for school curriculum, a private teaching institute for private teaching, or a private teaching institute for other fields under the former Private Teaching Institutes Act.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges, which did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on private teaching institutes provided by the former Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on private teaching institutes provided by the former Act or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on private teaching institutes provided by the former Act, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3654 Decided July 24, 2008 cited in the ground of appeal is a case where the former Private Institutes Act (amended by Act No. 7974 of Sep. 22, 2006) that did not have any provision concerning the teaching process or other curriculum for the type of a private teaching institute, unlike the statutes applicable to this case, and the former Enforcement Decree of the Private Institutes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19953 of Mar. 23, 2007) is applied, and thus, it cannot be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)