beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C 1-misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. In relation to paragraph (1) of this Article, Defendant C, as the president of the J Child Care Center (hereinafter “J Child Care Center”) as stated in the judgment of the court below, has assisted the “accounting” business, which is part of the duties of the president of A, while performing the original duties. Thus, Defendant C cannot be deemed to have leased the child care center’s license from A.
Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of this part of the facts charged because it was deemed that Defendant C actually performed the duties of the president of the J Child Care Center. Therefore, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting
2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable. (B) Defendant D’s sentence (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant C 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is the person who was registered as the president of the J Child Care Center in Yeongdong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, from August 1, 2012 to December 27, 2012, and the Defendant is actually operating the J Child Care Center. The head or infant care teacher of the Infant Care Act is prohibited from performing the duties of the principal or infant care teacher of the Child Care Center by using his name or the name of the child care center, and is not the other party. The Defendant was actually performing the duties of the principal of the Child Care Center at the J Child Care Center registered as the principal from August 1, 2012 to December 27, 2012. Accordingly, the lower court determined that the Defendant was performing the duties of the principal of the Child Care Center by using the name of the principal of the Child Care Center, despite the absence of the evidence of each of the Defendant’s respective child care center in the lower judgment.