beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, Defendants Q were employed as regular childcare teachers from March 2013 to September of the same year. As such, Defendants Q did not receive subsidies by falsely registering Q Q as infant care teachers during the above period.
2) Defendant B did not have conspired or participated in a crime of violating the Infant Care Act by Defendant A.
B. Improper sentencing 1) The sentence of the lower court (2 years of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended sentence, 1 year of suspended sentence and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2) The Prosecutor’s above sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following: (a) determination on the assertion of mistake in the facts: (a) Article 36 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 13321, May 18, 2015); (b) Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act; and the purport of granting subsidies for personnel expenses of infant care teachers, the subsidies for personnel expenses of infant care teachers shall be provided on the premise that the relevant infant care teacher is in charge of the relevant duties during the ordinary operating hours of the relevant infant care facility; and (c) Article 36 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 13321, May 18, 2015); and (d) Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act; and (e) Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act and the purport of granting subsidies for personnel expenses of infant care teachers. Therefore, insofar as the relevant infant care teacher is engaged in other duties during the ordinary operating hours of
In full view of the following circumstances, Q Q takes charge of the ordinary operation hours of a child care center during the period from March 2013 to September 2013, when comprehensively considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du2436, Jun. 13, 2013).