beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine (the receipt of each false subsidy) (the receipt of each false subsidy) Article 54(2)1 of the Infant Care Act is granted a subsidy by “a false or other unlawful means”
The term “child care center in this case” can be interpreted as receiving a subsidy by actively deception or any other unreasonable act that is not acceptable in light of social norms even though it is not possible to receive the subsidy (see Constitutional Court Decision 2015HunBa247, 2015HunBa363 (Joint)) on April 28, 2016). It is true that the Defendant, who is working hours, did not stay in the “E Child care Center” (hereinafter “Child Care Center in this case”) within eight hours, but it is merely a mere neglect of work, and if the Defendant, who is qualified as a child care teacher, has three infants, and thus, “ratio 1:3 of the teacher’s child” is formally equipped with “ratio 1.3”. Thus, the Defendant cannot be viewed as the “person who has received the subsidy by fraud or other improper means.”
However, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant by applying the above provision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of the evidence such as the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the part not guilty against the Defendants) F’s statement in the lower court, and the name lending contract made between the Defendants, Defendant B lent the child care center director’s license to Defendant A, and Defendant A is sufficiently recognized as having performed the duties of the head of the child’s house with the above license leased.
Nevertheless, the court below rejected the above evidence on the sole basis of G's statement in a position where it is not well known which Defendant A was a simple childcare teacher of the child care center of this case, and acquitted the Defendants of violation of the Infant Care Act due to the lending of the name of the principal of the child's house.