logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.08.22 2019고정47
영유아보육법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the director of the national or public C Child Care Center located in Gyeonggicheon-do, and C Child Care Center is the educational institution subsidized by the State for personnel expenses, such as retirement reserve funds.

No subsidy shall be granted, or shall be appropriated, by fraud or other improper means.

Nevertheless, from March 2010 to March 2018, the Defendant entrusted the operation of national and public C Child Care Centers and used the subsidies received as operating expenses of the Child Care Center without using the total amount of KRW 54,804,122, total amount of KRW 26,068,556 as the retirement reserve funds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written accusation;

1. Statement made by the police in relation to D;

1. Details of subsidies granted to C childcare centers, current status of payment of retirement pension, and written confirmation of payment of retirement pension;

1. Each written confirmation of E and F;

1. In an investigation report (examination of materials submitted by a suspect and determination of whether there exists a suspicion), (a) the defendant asserts that the subsidy in this case is not a private use, but for teachers' personnel expenses, and thus it cannot be deemed the diversion of the subsidy. However, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, the defendant appears to have used the reserve in this case for operating expenses of a child care center, not for teachers' retirement expenses, and the defendant's retirement reserve is confirmed not to have been accumulated every month despite the receipt of the subsidy, and in the case of the subsidy in this case, it is confirmed that the purpose of the subsidy in this case was limited, and thus, it constitutes the diversion of the subsidy in violation

1. Article 54 (2) 1 of the Infant Care Act and the selection of fines concerning the relevant criminal facts, the selection of punishment, and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The order of provisional payment;

arrow