Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who actually operated the “E Lifelong Education Center” located in Gui-si D from July 2013 to May 2014.

A business owner who operates a child-care center may entrust a child-care teacher who is employed to a training institution to conduct workplace skill development training, and where a child-care teacher has completed the training, he/she may receive subsidies from the Minister of Labor for the expenses incurred in providing such training, and in order to receive subsidies, the business owner shall conclude an entrustment contract with the training institution and actually pay training expenses to the training institution, and the infant-care teacher who is subject to education shall attend at least 80 percent of the training hours and complete the relevant training course.

Defendant 2 took advantage of the procedure that the above employer of childcare centers received training subsidies from the Minister of Labor, the employer of childcare centers did not pay training expenses for childcare teachers to the lifelong education center operated by Defendant 2, and even if childcare teachers did not meet the requirements for completing the training course, the employer of childcare centers prepared false tax statements to the effect that they received training expenses from the employer of childcare centers, and submitted them to the staff in charge of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, by preparing a false report on conducting training and an application for workplace skill development training expenses as if childcare teachers had attended at least 80/10 and completed training.

From July 13, 2013 to February 27, 2014, the Defendant had 45 children’s house managers pay total of KRW 84,493,177 as the “business owner’s subsidies” as the “business owner’s subsidies” as stated in the list of crimes committed in the attached Table, and received a refund from the business owners as training expenses.

Accordingly, the defendant was granted subsidies by deceiving the victim, and was granted subsidies by false application.

Summary of Evidence

1...