학원의설립ㆍ운영및과외교습에관한법률위반
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Although a person who intends to establish and operate a private teaching institute is registered with the superintendent of the competent office of education, the Defendant, without registration, operated the private teaching institute by allowing an English instructor, who is the Philippines, to teach English language using the Internet, with the trade name “C”, which was recruited through the Internet from February 25, 201 to October 8, 2012 from February 25, 201, with the Defendant’s residence of the Defendant, Songpa-gu 202, Songpa-gu, Seoul, for tuition fees, from 20 unspecified learners who received 60,000 to 85,000 won.
2. According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons, “private teaching institutes” subject to registration with the superintendent of the competent office of education means the facilities where a private person teaches (including where a person provides consultation, etc. necessary to enter a regular school, and where a person provides distance lessons using information and communications technology, etc. for 30 days or more according to the teaching course (including where the number of teaching days becomes at least 30 days by repeating the teaching course) or provides learning places with knowledge, techniques (including skills), and arts for at least 30 days to students or many unspecified persons, or where a private person provides distance lessons using information and communications technology, etc. as mentioned above, the definition of a private teaching institute is included in the definition of a private teaching institute after its enforcement after being amended on July 25, 2011.
However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it is recognized that the Defendant had mediated the teaching activities between domestic students and the Apostille by using information and communications technology, etc. with the trade name “C” from February 25, 2011 to October 8, 2012, it is insufficient to recognize the circumstance that the Defendant hired the above instructor and directly provided teaching services.