However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant, from July 18, 2013 to August 18, 2014, operated the “D Lifelong Education Institute” located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

A person who operates a childcare center may entrust a childcare teacher who is employed workers to a training institution to conduct workplace skill development training, and where a childcare teacher has completed the training, he/she may receive subsidies from the Minister of Employment and Labor for such expenses.

In order to receive such subsidies, a business owner should enter into a training entrustment contract with a training institution and pay training expenses to the training institution, and an infant care teacher who is subject to education must attend at least 80/100 of the training hours and complete the training course.

On August 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) using the procedure for receiving training subsidies from the Minister of Employment and Labor; and (b) on August 1, 2013, the Defendant actually received training expenses from F, the employee in charge of the Human Resources Development Service of the Victim’s Human Resources Development (E Child Care Center), and submitted a false attendance and an application for subsidies for vocational skills development training expenses, electronic tax invoices, etc., as the relevant infant care

However, the fact is that F did not pay training expenses for lifelong education teachers to lifelong education centers operated by the Defendant, or infant care teachers did not attend at least 80/100.

The Defendant had the victim deposit KRW 80,00 with the F’s account around August 2013, and had the victim deposit KRW 80,000 from July 8, 2013 to August 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 192,337,098 in the same manner to the 84 childcare centers business owners as shown in the attached crime list.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to receive the property from the above business owner.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each police officer with respect to G and H.