The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence against the accused.

The Defendant of the public lawsuit room in the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is the name of the “C-school childcare center” during the indictment period for the “C-school childcare center” under the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and is the primary school student. As such, there is a difference between the child under the age of six and the child care center to which the Infant Management Act applies, and the after-school class is also the basis for the establishment of the law, but the provisions on the “child care service guidance” under the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s provision on the “child care service guidance” under the Ministry’s issuance of the after-school class teachers are applied mutatis mutandis, as seen below.

The Chairman shall be the Chairman.

After-school childcare centers shall provide after-school childcare services to elementary school students, and teachers and staff, such as infant care teachers, shall, in principle, work eight hours a day, stay in the childcare center and work on a regular basis during working hours, and shall be engaged in the relevant duties at the childcare center, and in principle, work environment improvement expenses shall be paid to school teachers who work for eight hours a day in the childcare center and are in charge of the Ban.

Nevertheless, even though D, E, and F did not work for at least 8 days a day and worked for at least 60 hours a day, the Defendant filed a false application with the competent Dongjak-gu Office to have worked for at least eight hours a day and received subsidies, such as environmental improvement expenses.

On April 2015, the Defendant had access to the Integrated Information System for Child Care at the same child care center and filed a claim for environmental improvement expenses, as if D met the requirements for payment of allowances, and was transferred from the Republic of Korea to the account in the name of D around that time as D’s working environment improvement expenses.

In addition, the Defendant, from March 2013 to March 2017, in total, 8480,000 won from the Republic of Korea as the working environment improvement cost by the same method over 49 times, such as the written list of crimes.