The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to kindergartens entered in the facts charged of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”), educational environment protection zones (school environmental sanitation and cleanup zones) were not lawfully established and publicly announced. Even if not, the Defendant recognized that his act was not a crime, and the perception was justifiable, thereby constituting legal errors.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to protect the health, sanitation, safety, learning, and educational environment of students, no person is allowed to operate a business that provides services, such as facilities and equipment, so that customers can sleep and stay within 200 meters near the elementary, middle, high school, and kindergarten and university. However, the Defendant, from around April 1, 2003 to February 16:05, 201, operated a business that provides D kindergarten located in the Dong-gu Daejeon District of Daejeon (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”) within 200 meters from the boundary of the D kindergarten located in the Dong-gu of Daejeon (hereinafter “instant kindergarten”), “B” in the same Gu E (hereinafter “instant accommodation facilities”) with the fee for the use of the said facilities.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

C. 1) In a criminal trial, recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if the Defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the Defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as where the Defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 28, Apr. 28, 201)