The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The first instance court, which found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged, sentenced two years of suspended sentence to eight months of imprisonment. The second instance court dismissed the charge of defamation among the facts charged and sentenced 1.5 million won of fine by recognizing the Defendant guilty as to the remainder of violation of the Private School Act.

However, only the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance, and the dismissed portion of the judgment of the second instance did not appeal all the Defendant and the prosecutor. Thus, the dismissal of the public prosecution was determined separately, and only the guilty portion of the judgment of the first and the judgment of the second court is subject to the

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the judgment of the court below of first instance, the Defendant’s embezzlement (De facto mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1 did not pay the victim G to the extent that the lease contract was lawfully terminated on or around February 10, 2012, the business entity of F Kindergartens and F Child Care Centers after March 2012 is the Defendant, the victim cannot own subsidies, etc., and the Defendant’s operation of kindergarten and child care centers (hereinafter “crime list”).

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine. (2) Each amount indicated in Nos. 6, 8, 9, 14, and 15, excluding the amount indicated in No. 1 of the Infant Care Act, among the crimes committed in violation of the Infant Care Act, is paid as interest to childcare centers loans, and thus, is not a legitimate disbursement for the benefit of infants and young children, and is not a subsidy granted from Mapo-gu office.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. As to the judgment of the court below of the second instance (e.g., imprisonment and unfair).