The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (five million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content that “from November 12, 201 to October 11, 201” was changed from “from July 20, 2011 to October 11, 2012” to “from November 12, 2010 to the time when the prosecutor committed the act of violating the School Health Act among the facts charged in the instant case,” and the judgment of the court below was changed by granting permission. As such, the judgment below was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The substance of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court are as follows. The summary of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below is as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except that the facts charged in the second sentence “from November 12, 2010 to November 20, 201,” which read “from July 20, 201,” and thus, it is cited pursuant to Article 369

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of relevant Acts concerning criminal facts, Articles 19 and 6 (1) 19 of the School Health Act (the point of violating prohibited acts in school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone) concerning the selection of punishment, and Article 46 (1) 2 of the Employment Security Act (the point of recruiting workers for employment purposes related to obscene acts);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The sentencing of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which had not been initially prohibited, was designated as a business subject to prohibition during the Defendant’s business activity, and was committed in this case. The Defendant led to the instant crime, and the Defendant led to confession and repent of the crime, and the sentencing indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s environment, the background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.