1. As to the violation of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Gu Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons

A. According to Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (amended by Act No. 10916, Jul. 25, 201; hereinafter “Private Teaching Institutes Act”), “private teaching institutes” means facilities which teach knowledge, techniques (including skills) and arts for not less than 30 days or provide them as learning places for not less than 30 days according to the curriculum of not less than the number of students determined by Presidential Decree (including cases where the number of teaching days repeatedly becomes 30 days due to the curriculum). Article 2-2 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act separates “private teaching institutes for school curriculum” from “private teaching institutes for lifelong education” and “private teaching institutes for lifelong education” from “private teaching institutes for school curriculum” as the type of private teaching institutes, and the classification of private teaching institutes for each type of elementary school under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Early Childhood Education Act shall be determined by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, the curriculum of private teaching institutes for school curriculum or for each type of private teaching school under Article 25(15).

In full view of the relevant provisions, even if a private teaching institute that teaches young children pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Early Childhood Education Act cannot classify the curriculum into one of the practical foreign languages, music, art, dance, and reading rooms, if it teaches knowledge, techniques, and arts through other teaching curricula, it is reasonable to view that the curriculum constitutes a private teaching institute for school curriculum, a private teaching institute for school curriculum, a private teaching institute for other fields, or a private teaching institute for department under the Private Institutes Act.

B. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant established 7 classrooms and a slick drums with the trade name “○○○○○○○” on the fourth floor of the 4th floor located in the building located in Songpa-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from September 2008 to January 201, and established and operated a private teaching institute without registering it with the superintendent of education, such as educating language, perception, emotional, and physical programs from September 10 to 14 years from September 200; and (b) even if the Defendant’s ○○○○○ Program focuses on the development of creativity, thinking, and guidance ability of young children, it cannot be denied that some lessons such as language, arts, etc. were made at a low level; and (c) a private teaching institute for young children falls under the curriculum of the Enforcement Decree of the Education Act with the reason stated in its reasoning and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the teaching school, such as teaching method operated by the ○○○○ school.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted at the court below, the judgment below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of no punishment without the law, or in exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules in interpreting the definition of a private teaching institute and a private teaching institute subject to registration as provided in the Private Teaching Institutes Act. Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3654 Decided July 24, 2008 cited in the grounds of appeal, which stated in the grounds of appeal, contrary to the Acts and subordinate statutes as seen earlier, has no provision concerning the teaching process of other departments in the course of teaching by type of a private teaching institute (amended by Act No. 7974 of Sep. 22, 2006) and the Enforcement Decree of the former Private Teaching Institutes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 199

2. As to the violation of the Infant Care Act

As to the facts charged of violating the Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 10789, Jun. 7, 2011; hereinafter “Child Care Act”), that the Defendant operated the ○○○○○○○○○ in the form of childcare facilities in the same time and place as the preceding paragraph without authorization from 14 to 18 days, the lower court determined that it is reasonable to view that the instant facilities are concurrently in the nature of childcare facilities under the Infant Care Act, in view of the fact that the Defendant provided the remaining children after a regular curriculum was completed for both spouses, etc., and provided guidance and received compensation therefor.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant statutes and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on interpretation of nursery facilities

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)