The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the interpretation of false and other unlawful means

A. Article 16(1) of the former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter “former Act on the Development of Workplace Skills”) provides that “the State, a local government, or the Minister of Labor who intends to conduct workplace skill development training under Articles 12 through 15 may conduct workplace skill development training upon entering into an entrustment contract with a person designated by the Presidential Decree.” Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that “If a person entrusted with workplace skill development training falls under any of subparagraphs 1 and 2, the entrusted person shall terminate the entrustment contract.” Article 16(2) provides that “Where training costs are paid or the person intends to receive them by fraudulent or other illegal means

In addition, Article 16 (3) of the former Vocational Development Act provides that "the State, local governments, or the Minister of Labor may not entrust workplace skill development training under paragraph (1) to a person whose commission contract is terminated (excluding a case where training expenses are less than the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree from among persons whose commission contract is terminated due to a reason falling under paragraph (2) 2) within the scope of five years from the date of termination."

On the other hand, Article 56 (1) of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter “Occupational Development Act”) provides that “the State or a local government may order a person whose entrustment contract is terminated pursuant to Article 16 (2) or a worker whose participation in a course or loan is restricted pursuant to Article 55 (1) to return the amount of subsidy or loan received by false or other unlawful means out of the amount of subsidy or loan already provided,” and Article 56 (3) provides that “the State, a local government, or the Minister of Employment and Labor orders a return pursuant to paragraph (1), by fraud or other improper means.”