The meaning of the “private teaching institute” under Article 2(1) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act.

In full view of the provisions of Article 2(1) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act and Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the number of teaching days becomes 30 days or more, it cannot be interpreted that if it is equipped with facilities that enable 10 or more persons to teach at the same time in light of the size of the facilities of the teaching school and the details of the teaching school, it is deemed that it is a private teaching school prescribed by the above Act and that it must be a case where 10 or more persons actually

Article 2 (1) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private Teaching Institutes Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Do322 Decided July 10, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 87No567 delivered on May 12, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 2 (1) of the amended Private Teaching Institutes Act (amended by Act No. 3728, Apr. 10, 1984) provides that "private teaching schools" refers to facilities which teach knowledge, techniques, arts, or sports to many private persons for not less than 30 days or provide them as learning places for not less than 30 days according to the teaching process, and do not fall under any of the following subparagraphs. Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11665, Mar. 21, 1985) provides that "large number of persons" in the main sentence of Article 2 (1) of the same Act refers to cases where the number of persons who can take lessons or use them as learning places at the same time is not less than 10 days, in light of the size of their facilities, contents, etc., if the number of teaching days becomes 30 days or more, it shall not be interpreted that they fall under the above private teaching schools:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to see that the number of persons who received lessons at the same time is 10 or more at the same time, and that there is no evidence to see that there was 10 or more persons who received lessons at the same time as in the indictment, and found the defendant guilty on the charge of the original trial against the defendant. The above legal judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 2 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and there is no ground to point this out.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)