logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2019.08.12 2019고정105
영유아보육법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a child-care center under the trade name of “D child-care center” on the first floor of the B Apartment-dong, Leecheon-si.

No person shall receive or divert a subsidy by fraud or other improper means.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not report the appointment and dismissal of childcare teachers E who worked at the above childcare center from June 4, 2018 to October 4, 2018. Around June 2018, the Defendant filed a false claim for treatment improvement expenses as if E had worked at the above childcare center as E had worked at the above childcare center, and received KRW 5,000 for treatment improvement expenses around June 4, 2018.

As a result, the Defendant received subsidies by fraud or other improper means.

(1) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant had no intent to commit a crime of violating the Infant Care Act, since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that he had not been aware of the fact of temporary retirement of infant care teachers E in the claim for expenses for improvement of treatment because his health was not good at the time of the instant case. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant did not report the appointment and dismissal of the said teacher even though he was aware of the temporary retirement from June 4, 2018 to October 4 of the same year, and the Defendant continued to claim the expenses for the improvement of treatment of the said teacher until August 2018 after the said teacher was temporarily laid off, and ② the Defendant received a summary order with the criminal fact that he received a false subsidy from the competent administrative agency in 2011 and 2014, it is determined that the Defendant had an intention to make a false claim for subsidies. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion in this part is rejected).

1. The defendant;

arrow