(b) Infant care violations;

2. (a) B

3. (a) (b) R

4. A.C.

5. A. A.

6. A. BS

7. A. b. X

8. (a)(b) B.

9. (a) b) AB

10. (a) U.S.

11. A. B.T

12. A. B.F

13.(a) BU

14. A. BV

15. A. BW

16.a.b.BD

17.a.V

18.A.N

19.A.BX

20.A.BY

21.(a)(b) B

22. (a) BG

23. (a) CA;

24. (a)(b) CB

25. (a)CC;

26. (a) a.b. CD

CDs and Inspections

(Defendant A, B, R, X, B, U, B, B, B, BD, V, N, B, CA;

CB, CDs

Attorney Lee Won-chul, Counsel for Lee Jae-young

Law Firm R, U, B, CA, and CDs

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm Sejong (For Defendant R, BV, andCC)

Attorney Noh Jeong-ho, Justice Kim Jong-soo, and Justice Cho Jae-he

Law Firm (with Limited Liability) Dongin (For the purpose of Defendant AC and BU)

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Lee Jin, Lee Jin, Lee Jin, Lee Jin

Law Firm Pyeongan (Defendant BS, BX, BY)

Attorney Ahn Dai-hee, Lee Ho-hoon, and Noh Jeong-hee

Attorney Park Jong-dae (for defendant AB, BF, V, N, and CB)

1. Judgment on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged (excluding the part of innocence and the part not guilty of the reasoning). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in its judgment, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in breach of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the causal relationship between the deception and the disposal act in fraud, the criminal intent of deception, the intention

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, AA, B, and BG

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted Defendant B, AA, B, and B of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of orders and the part not guilty of the reasoning with respect to Defendant B). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception, deception, and conspiracy in fraud.

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant R, BV, andCC

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted Defendant R, BV, andCC of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of orders and the part not guilty of reasoning with respect to Defendant R). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of disclosure, deception, and calculation of the amount

4. Judgment on Defendant AC and BU’s grounds of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted Defendant AC and BU of the facts charged. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of disclosure in fraud, fraud, criminal intent, deception, calculation of the amount of fraud, reinforcement of confession, budget-related rules applied to private kindergartens, limitation of delegated legislation, and evidence trial principle.

5. The lower court found Defendant BS, BX, and BY guilty of the facts charged against Defendant BS, BX, and BY on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of disclosure in fraud, the causal relationship between deception and disposal, the intent to obtain fraud, the intent of unlawful acquisition, and the abuse of the right of prosecution.

6. Determination on Defendant CD’s grounds of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted Defendant CD of the charge (other than the part not guilty of the disposition). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of disclosure in fraud, the criminal intent of defraudation, the intention of unlawful acquisition, and the causal relationship between the act

7. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted Defendant A, B, and CD on the charge of fraud and the violation of the Infant Care Act and the charge against Defendant R, X, B, AB, U.S., BT, BF, BD, V, N, B, CA, and CB on the ground that there is no proof of crime. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the disposal authority in the crime of fraud, the causal relationship between the deception and the disposal act, and the “illegal method” under Article 54(4)6 of the Infant Care Act.

8. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Jong-il

Justices Park Il-san

Jeju High Court Justice Kim Jong-soo