Of the convictions of the lower judgment, the improvement expenses for treatment and the evaluation-certification allowances are received respectively.

1. Scope of trial for the relevant case after the progress of litigation and the transmission thereof;

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case, and found the Defendant guilty of violating the Infant Care Act, and sentenced a fine of KRW 3 million to the Defendant. Only the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the lower judgment.

2) The judgment of the court below prior to remand limited the scope of the judgment of the court below to the convicted portion among the judgment below, and reversed the judgment of the court below, and found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the violation of the Infant Care Act due to the lending of qualification among the facts charged of this case was committed on the charge of violating the Infant Care Act due to the illegal supply of evaluation allowances. The defendant convicted the defendant as to the violation of the Infant Care Act due to the illegal supply of treatment improvement expenses, which is the remaining facts charged, and sentenced a fine of KRW 1.5 million to the defendant. The defendant appealed against the above guilty portion, and the prosecutor appealed against the aforementioned acquitted portion

3) The Supreme Court rejected the Defendant’s appeal against the guilty portion, and rejected the appeal against the violation of the Infant Care Act due to the lending of qualification (title lending) in the prosecutor’s appeal. On the other hand, with respect to the violation of the Act on Infant Care for respective infant due to the illegal receipt of evaluation allowances, the evaluation allowances, etc. are paid to the relevant infant care organization to subsidize expenses deemed necessary for the personnel expenses of infant care teachers or the operation of childcare facilities for the relevant infant care facilities, which constitutes subsidies under Article 36 of the former Infant Care Act and Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Infant Care Act, and it is reasonable to view that the portion of the judgment below’s non-guilty portion constitutes “the subsidy” prohibited from being granted by fraud or other improper means under Article 54(2) of the former Infant Care Act. Thus, the evaluation allowances, etc. among the acquitted portion of the judgment below