The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The charge of violating the Infant Care Act due to the wrongful receipt of subsidies in the form of personnel expenses for part-time childcare teachers among the facts charged in the instant case by mistake (the judgment of the court below)

A. 1. (A) part of paragraph (1) and the violation of the Infant Care Act due to the illegal receipt of infant care fees for extended hours (the decision of the court below)

A. In relation to Paragraph 2, the Defendant did not have filed a false application for overtime childcare performance.

In other words, at around 19:30, the Defendant: (a) taken care of childcare children on the instant childcare center school school vehicles; (b) took care of the children subject to childcare extended the remaining hours, excluding those returning to the said school vehicles; and (c) took care of them again to the childcare center of this case; and (d) took care of

On the other hand, among the facts charged in the case of this case, the violation of the Infant Care Act due to the illegal receipt of subsidies in the name of the head of the school.

A. 1) In relation to paragraph (1) b), the Defendant, as the head of the instant child’s house and the teacher, actually performed the duties of the child care teacher.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 20 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant: (a) sent all the children including the children subject to the extension of hours to the instant childcare center school school school vehicles at around 19:20; and (b) did not keep other children on the said school vehicles from around 21:0 to 21:30 who were returning to the said school vehicles by other children; (c) Nevertheless, the Defendant filed a false application for the result of the extension of hours from around 19:30 to around 21:30, as the instant childcare center had provided childcare to the children subject to the extension of hours; and (d) on the other hand, the Defendant directly provided duties of infant care teachers who directly take care of the diesel half of the instant childcare school.