Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged F is a person who is operating the H Child-Care Center in ASEAN-si G, and the actual director of the said Child-Care Center.

Defendant

A From March 14, 2012 to April 2, 2012, and from April 12, 2012 to April 2, 2012, Defendant B reported the appointment and dismissal of each of the above child care centers to the president in the name of each of the above child care centers and served in the above child care center.

No head or infant care teacher of the children's house shall allow any third person to perform the duties of the head or infant care teacher of the children's house by using his/her name or the name of the child care center, nor lend his/her certificate of qualification to any third person,

Nevertheless, the Defendants were operated by F from March 14, 2012 to April 16, 2012.

H In the above period of service, the child care center received the method of operation of the child care center from F or agreed to receive a certain amount of money during the above period of service, and lent the child care center qualification certificate to F.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion was that the Defendants actually worked as the president of H children’s house during each period specified in the facts charged, and thus, the Defendants did not lend F the certificate of qualification to F.

The charges are denied by asserting that they are facts charged.

B. The written accusation (limited to Defendant A) that has no admissibility of evidence does not consent to the admissibility of evidence by Defendant A, and the authenticity of the establishment is not recognized by the original statement made by the original statement made by Defendant A. As such, the admissibility of evidence is inadmissible. The police interrogation protocol against F, the police interrogation protocol against Defendant A (limited to Defendant A), the police interrogation protocol against Defendant B (limited to Defendant B), and the police interrogation protocol against Defendant B (limited to Defendant B) are inadmissible by this court, and all of the defendants are inadmissible.

(c)

In the facts charged, each police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant A, which lacks probative value due to lack of direct relevance, shall be reported, abstract of resident registration, I, J, K, K, L, M, N andO, and police against the defendant A.