Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

A person who intends to establish and operate a teaching school shall report to the superintendent of education as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not make such a report, and operated a teaching school by receiving KRW 1,690,000 per person under the name of participation in English campaigns from the E University Cultural Center located in the Republic of Korea from December 29, 201 to January 10, 201, for 30 students in the fourth-6 grade of elementary school in the Republic of Korea from the from around January 29, 201 to from around January 10, 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written accusation of the head of the District Education Office of Gangwon-do Office of Education;

1. Application of a factual verification of the F Preparation and a written statement of the G Preparation;

1. Establishment and operation of a private teaching institute for criminal facts, Article 22 (1) 3 and Article 14 (1) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes for the Selection of Penalties, and Selection of Fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The purport of Article 14(5) and (6) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter “Private Teaching Institutes Act”), Articles 15(2) and 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, by strictly regulating the human and physical requirements of the teaching school without reasonable grounds, thereby making it impossible to report the instant English campaign impossible, and discriminating against the private teaching institute and the teaching school. As such, the Defendant’s violation of the Defendant’s duty to report is an unconstitutional provision that infringes on the Defendant’s freedom of occupation and the right to equality.

2. First of all, according to the above evidence, the English campaign of this case operated by the defendant is more than 10 students, but since the number of teaching days is less than 30 days, it does not correspond to the "private teaching institute" under the main sentence of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Private Institutes Act, and there is no circumstance to regard it as falling under each item of the proviso of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, and therefore, it constitutes the "tuition" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act.