All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles (crime No. 1 of the crime committed in the judgment below and the violation of the Infant Care Act) Defendant A actually worked as infant care teacher at the child care center of this case, and even if part of the cooking work was performed, it cannot be viewed any different. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 4 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles of light, the Defendants asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, but the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, and found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged in this case including this part of the facts charged by compiling the evidence as a whole. The Defendants A and B, who is the operator of the instant childcare center, performed mainly cooking duties while on the part of part of other infant care teachers, and provided some assistance to other infant care teachers, and the infant care teachers did not have any provision on the criteria for assigning a cook duty for less than 40 children’s house, and there is room to view it as part of the implementation of infant care duties in the case of preparation within the necessary scope of infant care.

In addition to the fact that the principal work of cooking as Defendant A cannot be seen as a case where the principal work of cooking is conducted, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the Defendants.

Defendants’ mistake of facts.