The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant entered into a contract with each special activity supplier (G, I, and K; hereinafter “special activity company”) to set monthly special activity expenses of KRW 20,000 per child and KRW 10,000 per child, respectively, in accordance with the market economy principle, each of the above amounts is duly determined according to the market economy principle, and thus constitutes an actual supply price. Since there is no legal or contractual obligation to notify the guardian of the fact that the Defendant received a reward after the special activity company, there was a deception of fraud, or that the Defendant used unlawful methods prescribed in Article 54(3)6 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 12627, Jan. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same).

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The guardian of the child home operated by the Defendant determined that the amount of special activity expenses would be appropriate compared with other child care centers, and the guardian's act did not engage in an act of disposal by mistake. Thus, there is a relation between the Defendant's act and the guardian's special activity expenses.

subsection (b) of this section.

3) The Defendant had no change in the amount of the special activity expenses that the Defendant received from the special activity entity before receiving the money from the special activity entity and thereafter had the special activity education for the childcare children, and the Defendant had the special activity education for the childcare children normally. As such, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed fraud against the guardian on the ground that some of the special activity expenses were refunded, and therefore, the Defendant’s special activity expenses were not incurred

4) The concept of so-called “actual cost”, which is the actual cost of special activities, is merely indicated as a guide for infant care services in 2012, published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and does not exist under the former Infant Care Act. Therefore, the scope of the above actual cost is limited.