The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) by Defendant C (hereinafter “alternative school in this case”) differs from the entrance conditions, the entrance procedures and the subject of notification of the entrance, and there is no academic system, graduation or degree not awarded, and there is no restriction on the qualification requirements of the teaching staff. As such, it differs from the requirements of the schools stipulated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, etc., on the ground that the Defendant did not actually operate the alternative school in this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant of the facts charged in this case on a different premise is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 67 (2) 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides a school name or recruits students and operating the facility in de facto form of a school without authorization. Whether it constitutes a “the operation in de facto form of a school” refers to using the name of the school without authorization or recruiting students and having them receive education. It should be determined by comprehensively considering the purpose and name of the establishment, the organization of the school, the educational curriculum and method, the organization of the school, the curriculum and method, the composition of entrance qualifications and teaching staff, the organization of tuition fees, the payment of tuition fees and the granting of degrees following graduation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do44400, Oct. 29). B. 29 in light of the above legal principles, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant used the name of the school and operated the alternative school in the form of a school.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

1) The Defendant intended to enable students who are unable to adapt to the school life of a regular educational institution, with a view to enabling such children to win school register.