Defendant 1 and one other

Freeboard Kim

Attorney Cho Jong-soo

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants are operating kindergartens in the name of “insulgin sullle,” on the fourth floor of the future sulll building located in the Western-si, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu.

Any person who intends to establish and operate a private kindergarten shall obtain authorization from the superintendent of the Office of Education.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired with the superintendent of education from March 3, 2007 to April 7, 2008, and operated a kindergarten teaching art, music, and book reading without obtaining the authorization of the superintendent of education. In addition, the Defendants received the tuition fees of KRW 600,000 per person for children from the age of 3 to 6,000 per month for children who were not attending school.

2. Determination

The public prosecutor is instituting the case on the grounds that the defendants violated Article 34(1)1 and Article 8(2) of the Early Childhood Education Act. Article 34(1)1 of the Early Childhood Education Act provides that "any person who operates a kindergarten without obtaining authorization to establish a kindergarten under Article 8(2) shall be punished," and Article 8(2) provides that "any person who intends to establish a private kindergarten shall obtain authorization from the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City or the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education."

However, Article 2 of the Early Childhood Education Act provides for the establishment standards, curriculum, qualifications of school teachers, etc. in Articles 8, 13, and 22, as “children from the age of three to the age of elementary school”, and defines kindergartens as “schools established and operated for the education of infants”, and provides strict standards for establishment, curriculum, qualifications of school teachers, etc.

In addition, the purpose of the Early Childhood Education Act is to prescribe matters concerning early childhood education pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the Framework Act on Education (Article 1), and the Framework Act on Education is to establish schools to provide early childhood education under Article 9, while emphasizing the public nature of school education, it stipulates only elementary and secondary education as compulsory education (Article 8(1)), the establishment and operation of private teaching institutes, the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons, and the Lifelong Education Act separately recognizes the existence of teaching facilities other than schools, and provide the facility standards, etc. according to their forms.

Therefore, comprehensively interpreting the above relevant laws, the current law does not require an individual to operate all forms of educational facilities that provide education for young children in the form of “ kindergarten” under the Early Childhood Education Act, but does not prohibit private education similar to “ kindergarten”, etc., so long as the Early Childhood Education Act does not stipulate such regulations as prohibiting private education, it shall be possible to select whether to operate educational facilities under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes, Extracurricular Lessons, and Lifelong Education Act, and to provide education according to the purport of the relevant statutes.

However, according to the evidence and relevant evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendants can only recognize the fact that they established and reported the education facilities of this case, which are referred to as the so-called "English kindergarten", as a lifelong education establishment related to knowledge and human resources development projects under the former Lifelong Education Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Dec. 14, 2007), and have operated the education facilities of this case according to other facilities and curriculum under the Early Childhood Education Act.

Therefore, the above facts alone cannot be deemed to have operated a kindergarten under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Early Childhood Education Act. Since the Defendants who operate a so-called “English kindergarten” cannot be deemed to have a duty to operate a kindergarten under the Early Childhood Education Act, the facts charged in this case on different premise are deemed to fall under the case where the Defendant case does not constitute a crime, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants operated a kindergarten under the Early Childhood Education Act, and as a result, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants violated Articles 34(1)1 and 8(2) of the Early Childhood Education Act. Accordingly, the facts charged in this case fall under the case where there is no proof of criminal facts and thus, the Defendants acquitted the Defendants pursuant to the latter part of Article 325

Judge Park Sung-sung