The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) As to the facts charged No. 1 of the facts charged, the Defendant leased the home childcare center facilities that the Defendant intended to operate to E, and E obtained authorization for the establishment of a parents’ cooperative childcare center with other parents who have infants and children. As such, the Defendant obtained authorization for the establishment of a childcare center in collusion with E by unlawful means.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) As to the facts charged No. 2, the Defendant had attempted to receive the cost of improving the working environment by E once, and did not conspired to receive the cost of improving the working environment by unlawful means by E.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that E fails to meet the requirements for receiving subsidies for at least 30 hours a week, for at least 15 days a month.

3) As to the facts charged No. 3, the Defendant merely assisted some of the tasks, such as the integrated childcare information system to be operated by E as the president, and did not actually operate the instant childcare center by borrowing the name of president from E.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (a punishment of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court. In other words, the Defendant, in order to operate a family childcare center, installed interior and various facilities necessary for the operation of the child care center on the apartment purchased by himself/herself, but recommended E to obtain authorization for the child care center in the above apartment complex as he/she did not obtain the authorization for the child care center at the competent Gu office, and ② the Defendant continuously participated in the establishment process of the child care center in the instant case, such as inviting E to recruit her children together with E and encourage her guardian to become a member of the child care center.