Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles regarding the instant facts charged did not specify the amount of damage to each victim and each victim.

B) The Defendant did not have provided milk from the milk supplier with KRW 350 per opening, and there was no fact that the Defendant had instigated the original care givers of KRW 200 per opening to the original career. C) Even if the Defendant received from the original career the value higher than the amount supplied from the former career, the Defendant did not have a duty to notify the original career of the supply price. Unlike the national or public kindergarten, the Defendant, who is the operator of a private kindergarten, is not obliged to use the education expenses received from the parents as actual expenses. d) Unlike the national kindergarten, the original career was provided with all milk as applied for, so there was no relation between deception and disposal. 2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (6 months and one year of suspended execution) on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. 1) In the case of fraud involving taking property advantage of a victim and a victim, if there is a provision of property due to deception, the crime of fraud is established as a result of the infringement of the victim's property, and even if there was no considerable price or damage to the whole property of the victim, even though the establishment of fraud does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud, it is not the difference between the value of the property given by the victim and the value of the property that has been deducted from the value of the property given by the victim. 2) The facts charged in this case are the value higher than the actual amount the defendant entered into the contract with the oil supplier.