Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

The Mayor may, if necessary, order a person who operates social welfare programs to report or submit related documents concerning his/her duties, and a person who operates social welfare programs shall not submit such data or submit false data without justifiable grounds.

1. Defendant A is the representative director of social welfare foundation B.

On November 24, 2010, the Defendant was approved as a replacement of the fundamental property on the condition that a new child-care center is newly built instead of selling the site D or E located in North Korea, the basic property of the above welfare foundation, to F, but did not implement it.

Accordingly, the Defendant at the office of the above welfare foundation located in G in North Korea-si, North Korea-si.

(a) is ordered on October 23, 2014 to submit a new plan for the establishment of a child-care center from the following mayor:

B. Around November 11, 2014, around November 25, 2011 of the same year, or around January 7, 2015, an order to submit a plan for the restoration of child care centers from the Sosan market for three times on three occasions, but the above data was not submitted within each time limit without justifiable grounds.

2. Defendant B, a social welfare foundation, committed the above offenses in relation to the Defendant’s business at each of the above dates, places, and at each of the above dates, A, the representative of the Defendant

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant A's partial statement in the first trial record;

1. Witness of H;

1. Each official document (Evidence Nos. 6 through 9) in the name of the head of the following city in the following city [the Defendants submitted each order to submit each of the instant orders from the following city in order to submit a new child care center on October 31, 2014, and the original child care center restoration plan on November 25, 2014, but the public official in charge of the administration in the following city in the following city in the following city refused repair without justifiable grounds, and thus, the Defendants should be acquitted.

However, in light of the following circumstances admitted by the above evidence, the above plan was rejected without justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is justified.