The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) that imposes liability on an employer, a juristic person, or an individual is ultimately based on a breach of the duty of care in appointment, management, and supervision, and the Defendant was responsible for directly employing teachers to direct and direct their duties, and managing and supervising teachers. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that an employee of the instant violating person as to teachers is the head of a child-care center, who has a duty of care in appointment and supervision.

2. Where a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other servant of a corporation or individual commits an offence under Article 71 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions;

Provided, That this shall not apply where a corporation or an individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such violation.

In accordance with the above provision, “corporation or individual” under Article 74 refers to a business owner who operates his own business on its own account, not merely a business owner in the form of a business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do3570, Oct. 27, 2000; 2009Do6968, Jul. 8, 2010). In light of the records cited by the lower court as the grounds for innocence, the lower court’s decision that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant is the business owner operating the child care center of this case on his own account or that it is difficult to recognize the child care teachers of this case as the Defendant’s employee is just and acceptable, and the Defendant cannot be punished by applying the two punishment provisions on the sole ground that the Defendant is not the business owner and the child care teachers of this case.