The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is misunderstanding the legal principles (i.e., the English camp operated by the Defendant was conducted in E within the facility of a D University according to the purpose of establishment of the said D University, and thus, the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter “Private

(2) Since the above English camp conducted an integrated education schedule for a period of up to 30 days, it is not a extracurricular to prepare for school subjects, but a student in the above English camp cannot be deemed to be a "student" under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Private Institutes Act. 2. The judgment of this court on February 2, 200

A. Various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, i.e., the Defendant: (a) opened an English experience campaign for two weeks to four weeks for elementary school students and middle school students by leasing E and dormitory, etc. in the D University; and (b) leased only the place to the Defendant, and (c) substantial operation of the English camp, such as the program planning, the instructor, and the conflict of schools, which the Defendant claimed that the Defendant was entrusted by the D University International Language Research Institute, was in charge of the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant operated the English camp in the form of the D University and operated the English camp in the English language language language language language, the content of the program was conducted at a place leased from D University in the English language language language, the purpose of education, the type of education, the purpose of education, etc. prescribed by the Higher Education Act, even if the camp in this case was leased from D University.