logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.04.24 2014노4826
영유아보육법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The Section Settlement System determined by the Infant Care Act is against the basic principles of the Constitution, and the types and methods of sanctions are determined based on them, thereby violating the principle of statutory reservation.

② Articles 54(3)4 and 34 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11627, Jan. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same) shall apply to cases where a beneficiary under the National Basic Living Security Act or a household with a certain income or less prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare applies for support by deceiving him/her, applies for support by deceiving his/her household’s income level, residential area, etc., or receives support by deceiving him/her as if he/she is at least two children, even though he/she is not at least two children. Thus, Defendant’s act, other than an infant’s guardian, does not constitute the above punishment

③ The Defendant was guilty of having sent ARS due to an error in the number of days of attendance, and did not have infants and young children receive childcare support by fraud or other improper means.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on different premise, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In relation to the Defendant’s assertion (1), the lower court determined that the Ministry of Health and Welfare has established a section settlement system that provides the amount of monthly childcare subsidy for 25% in cases where the number of children attending a childcare center is divided into three sections pursuant to Article 34(1) and (2) of the former Infant Care Act and the amount of childcare subsidy for 5 days or less, 50% in cases of 6-10 days or more, and 100% in cases of 11 days or more. In so doing, the lower court did not violate the principle of statutory reservation inasmuch as the amount of childcare subsidy is separately determined in light of limited national finance and the period of the need for the consignment of the child care.

arrow