The judgment below

The part against the defendant regarding the disposition of the suspension of operation of a child care center for six months shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The lower court’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff’s act of falsely registering H as a teacher in charge of the Plaintiff’s child care and receiving basic infant care fees constitutes “cases of receiving subsidies by fraud or other improper means” as provided by Article 40 subparag. 3 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11858, Jun. 4, 2013; hereinafter the same) and thus, the pertinent portion of the order ordering the return of subsidies is lawful; and (b) the Plaintiff’s act of carrying out duties of infant care teachers by employing non-qualified I as infant care teachers constitutes “cases of carrying out duties of infant care teachers, nurses, or dietitians, etc. by employing a person who is not qualified for performing the relevant duties” under Article 46 subparag. 2 of the former Infant Care Act; and (c) the Plaintiff’s act of receiving basic child care fees, meal expenses, and the pertinent portion of the order ordering the return of subsidies by fraud or other unlawful means as provided by Article 40 subparag. 3 of the former Infant Care Act.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, registered falsely by the Plaintiff among the total sum of the basic childcare fees and meal expenses for the 7st and March 2013 and the 1,941,650 won.