The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prior to the amendment by Act No. 10961 of July 25, 201, the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons

Ga. The Private Teaching Institutes Act (hereinafter “the Private Teaching Institutes Act”).

The main sentence of Article 9(2) applies to a case where the establishment and operation of a private teaching institute is concealed the fact that the grounds for disqualification under paragraph (1) of the same Article exist and the registration thereof is registered. Thus, insofar as the Defendant duly established and operated a private teaching institute, it cannot be deemed that the above registration has become null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for violation of the Private

In addition, Article 22(1)1 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act provides that a person who establishes and operates a private teaching institute without registration. Thus, even if the defendant was sentenced to a fine in violation of the Private Teaching Institutes Act and the registration of establishment and operation of a private teaching institute becomes invalidated, the defendant who has lawfully registered the private teaching institute cannot be punished

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant by applying Article 22 (1) 1 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act on the premise that the registration of establishment and operation of the defendant was invalidated by the main sentence of Article 9 (2) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the main sentence of Article 9 (2) and Article 22 (1) 1 of the

B. If the main sentence of Article 9(2) of the Private Teaching Institutes Act is interpreted to the effect that the registration of establishment and operation of a private teaching institute shall become null and void as a matter of course even after being sentenced to a fine in violation of the Private Teaching Institutes Act, such provision not only violates the principle of excessive prohibition, thereby infringing on freedom of occupation, but also violates the principle of equality.

In addition, Article 22 (1) 1 of the Private Institutes Act violates the principle of clarity derived from the principle of no punishment without law because it is unclear.

Nevertheless, the defendant is guilty by applying the main sentence of Article 9(2) and Article 22(1)1 of the Private Teaching Institutes Act.