A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the representative of Daejeon Middle-gu D'E Child Care Center, who has no certificate of qualification for the director of a child care center under statutes.

1. A person who violates the Infant Care Act (Prohibition against Lending of Name) has leased the title or qualification of the president or infant care teacher of a child's house or operated a child care center under the name of the child's home or the child care teacher, even though he/she was not leased, the Defendant borrowed the qualification of the head of the child care center from F to August 10, 2014 during the period from October 2 to August 10, 2013.

In addition, the defendant is from G working as an infant care teacher in the above E-child care center between August 11, 2014 and March 2, 2015, and from March 3, 2015 to the same year.

6. Until 30. A child-care center was operated under the name of the principal of the child-care center from H who works as the above E child-care center.

2. Although the Defendant violated the Infant Care Act (the illegal receipt of basic infant care fees) and the Subsidy Management Act, in operating a child care center with the lending of the principal qualification as described in the above 1.1., the Defendant had 3 teachers take care of 18 full-time children by dividing 18 children into three Bans (voluntary acquisition, pleasure gathering, pleasure gathering, and drinking-out) and making 3 teachers take care of each child, it has exceeded the appropriate number of children who are the basic requirements for the payment of child care fees (the percentage of children with infant care teachers) on the document, 4 Bans are more created and operated, and 4 Bans including the Defendant are operated, as if 4 infant care teachers including the Defendant were actually taking care of, and were willing to receive basic infant care fees by making a false report as if 4 infant care teachers including the Defendant were actually taking care of, and do not exceed the proper number of children by each half.

On November 1, 2013, the Defendant connected the “integrated Information System for Infant Care” to the “integrated Child Care” at the above E Child Care Center and claimed for the basic infant care fees in October 2013, and even though the above Child Care Center did not operate the desired child care center, the Defendant did not wish to do so.