The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The court below's judgment that acquitted the defendant on the ground of appeal can be recognized as the fact that the defendant borrowed a certificate of qualification from B as stated in the facts charged in this case and was unjustly granted a subsidy.

2. Determination

A. 1) The head of a child-care center is a qualified person prescribed by Presidential Decree, and the Minister of Health and Welfare grants a license (Article 21(1) of the Infant Care Act), and the head of a child-care center shall not lend a license to any third person (Article 22-2 of the Infant Care Act). Here, the term “loan of a director’s license” refers to the lending of a license to another person even though the other person knows that he/she intends to perform the duties of the head of a child-care center by using his/her license. It is reasonable to determine whether a unqualified person actually performed his/her duties by using the name of the director. 2) In light of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the appellate court, the defendant leased the child-care center’s child-care center’s child-care center’s child-care facility E (hereinafter “child-care center in this case”).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

This part of the Prosecutor’s argument is reasonable. A) appears to have performed some administrative duties, such as preparation, submission of documents, safety education, etc., under the Defendant’s instruction, but on the other hand, after entering into an employment contract with the representative Lcare center of this case, the term “F” teacher was full-time, and the term “F” teacher was 5-6 children under the age of 4 and other teachers.