1. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case that one teacher of child-care centers operated by the Defendant met the rate of infant-care teachers, and subsequently illegally received subsidies, such as basic child-care fees for three months from the Ansan market, and expenses for improvement in treatment of infant-care teachers, etc., for three months after he/she retired.

2. Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the part of the lower court’s reasoning stating the contents of the Enforcement Rule of the Infant Care Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 698 of December 31, 2019 and enforced March 1, 2020) that cannot be applied to the instant case is inappropriate, but it is justifiable for the lower court to have determined that the Defendant’s receipt of the instant subsidy constitutes a case of receiving the subsidy by unlawful means in violation of the percentage of infant care teachers according to the number of infants under the Infant Care Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a crime of violating Article 54(2)1 of the Infant Care Act and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and by omitting judgment on whether the head of a child care center is entitled to hold a concurrent office as

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