The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to prevent the occurrence of the instant case before and at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant had fulfilled due diligence and supervision over the relevant business in order to prevent C’s violation, and the lower court’s assessment that the Defendant did not perform considerable care and supervision on the grounds of ex post facto reasons is erroneous in matters of mistake of fact.

B. The suspended sentence of a fine of five million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Article 74 of the former Child Welfare Act (amended by Act No. 12361, Jan. 28, 2014) provides that “If a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation or individual commits an offence under Article 71 in connection with the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions: Provided, That this shall not apply where such corporation or individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such offence.”

In such a “Joint Penal Provisions”, the legislative intent of the pertinent Act, the degree of infringement of legal interests anticipated to violate the penal provision, the purport of the two punishment provisions concerning the relevant violation, as well as the specific form of the relevant violation and the degree of damage or result resulting therefrom, the business size of the corporation and the possibility of supervision or specific direction of the offender, and the measures actually taken by the corporation to prevent the violation.