2011Nu28105 Revocation of an administrative disposition

A

The Deputy Director General of the Central Regional Employment and Labor Office;

Incheon District Court Decision 2010Guhap4340 Decided July 14, 2011

December 1, 2011

December 22, 2011

1. The part against the plaintiff that is revoked under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s disposition on September 28, 2010 to revoke the revocation of the designation of a vocational skills development training establishment: ① the portion exceeding 58,290 won out of the disposition to return the illegally received amount of KRW 1,730,420, and KRW 1,730,420, and ② the disposition to revoke the designation of a vocational skills development training establishment

2. All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, and one of them shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Disposition to revoke the designation of a workplace skill development training establishment among the disposition provided for in paragraph (1) shall be suspended until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive;

1. Purport of claim

On September 28, 2010, the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff: ① Termination of a contract to commission workplace skill development training; 1.5 months from October 16, 2010 to November 30, 201; ② Termination of a contract for the automobile maintenance process; limitation on entrustment and recognition for 1.5 months from November 30, 209 to January 13, 201; ③ Refund of 1,730,420 won; and additional collection of 1,730,420 won; ④ Revocation of each disposition to revoke the designation of a training establishment that generates workplace skill development training facilities; and

2. Purport of appeal

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff seeking additional revocation is revoked, and the defendant revoked the part against the plaintiff for additional revocation on September 28, 2010, and the decision that revoked the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance that ① termination of the contract for workplace skill development training entrusted to the plaintiff on September 28, 201, ② termination of the contract for the entire course of workplace skill development training, ② limitation of entrustment and recognition for one year from November 30, 2009 to January 13, 2011, ③ return of the illegally received amount of KRW 1,730,420, and KRW 174,870 (the complaint's KRW 1,55,550 appears to be a clerical error in this objection) and ④ revocation of each disposition for revocation of designation of workplace skill development training facilities, and that part against the defendant is dismissed, and

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 25, 2002, the Plaintiff is a person who operates Cwork Technical School in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter referred to as the “instant facilities”). On February 25, 2002, the instant facilities were designated as vocational skills development training facilities under the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers (hereinafter referred to as the “Vocational Skills Development Act”) with respect to “the maintenance of machinery and equipment field, electronic field, processing, assembling, repair, administrative support in the field of work management, construction, industrial application design, business management, service management, and other types of work.”

B. On May 28, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into an entrustment contract with the Defendant for the following training courses for automobile maintenance (hereinafter “instant training courses”) (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) (hereinafter “instant training courses”) and conducted education for trainees.

- Training course: Automobile maintenance;

- Training Institution: Facility of this case (the representative plaintiff)

- Training period: 6 hours a day from May 29, 2008 to November 28, 2008, 764 hours and 764 hours a day: 25 persons (change 18, new 7 persons). The Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on November 30, 2009, on the ground that “D, during the instant training course, was present and processed by the trainee E, who was a training teacher, and the Plaintiff unlawfully received KRW 58,290 for training expenses incurred thereby,” to the Plaintiff on November 30, 2009.

D. After that, on September 28, 2010, the Defendant revoked ex officio the disposition of November 30, 2009, on the ground that the training costs of KRW 1,730,420 paid from the date of the substitute attendance to the last day of the training without removing trainees E on the ground that the attendance by proxy constitutes a reason for expulsion, and thus, the Defendant: ① the termination of the entrustment contract for the entire workplace skill development training course from October 16, 201 to November 30, 201; ② the termination of the contract for the automobile maintenance process; ② the termination of the entrustment contract for the automobile maintenance process; and the restriction on the recognition of the entrustment and recognition; ③ the illegal receipt amount of KRW 1,730,420; and ④ the additional disposition of revoking the designation of the vocational skill development training establishment (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition of revoking vocational ability development training establishment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case should be revoked because it is unlawful for the following reasons.

A) Absence of the grounds for termination of the entrustment contract

No training E did not request a training teacher D to attend a training school, and D also received an interview for employment immigration is a job examination prescribed by the rules on workplace skill development training such as the unemployed (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 577 of Jan. 22, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "training rules of this case") and conducted the attendance of E as a result of erroneous determination that it constitutes a job examination under the rules on workplace skill development training (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor No. 577 of Jan. 22, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "training rules of this case"). Since the plaintiff was not aware of this fact, it cannot be deemed that the case where training fees were received by fraudulent or other illegal means" under Article 16 (2) 2 of the Vocational Development Act or the case where workplace skill development training was conducted in violation of the entrustment agreement under subparagraph 3 of the same paragraph. Therefore, the

B) Absence of individual grounds for disposition

(1) Even if the Defendant may terminate an entrustment contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, training costs that the Plaintiff received by false or other unlawful means are merely 58,290 won for the period of absence from E. However, according to the individual standards under Article 16(3) of the Vocational Development Act, Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 6 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, where training costs that the Plaintiff received by false or other unlawful means are less than one million won, the entire course of workplace skill development training and the relevant training courses cannot be entrusted and recognized. Accordingly, the restriction on commission and recognition for the entire course of workplace skill development training during the instant disposition, and the restriction on commission and recognition for 1.5 months for the instant training course, does not have any grounds for each disposition, and the portion exceeding 58,730, 420 won out of the refund of illegally received amount, and the portion exceeding KRW 1,730, 420, 7174,780.

(2) In addition, in full view of the provisions of Article 16(2)2 and 3 of the Vocational Development Act, the above subparagraphs 2 and 3 cannot be applied to one act simultaneously. Thus, insofar as the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s act falls under subparagraph 2; and (b) rendered a disposition restricting entrustment and recognition of the entire process of workplace skill development training, it shall not be subject to a disposition restricting entrustment and recognition of the instant training course pursuant to subparagraph 3.

(3) According to the proviso of Article 31(1)3 of the amended Vocational Development Act (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008) which was in force at the time of the instant disposition (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008), where a designated vocational training facility is subject to restrictions on entrustment or recognition pursuant to Article 16(3) of the same Act, if some of the training courses not all are entrusted or recognized, the designation of a designated vocational training facility may not be revoked. In the case of the Plaintiff, some of the training courses are entrusted or recognized. Therefore, the disposition to revoke the designation of a vocational training facility among

C) the deviation and abuse of discretionary authority

The disposition of this case again was taken by the Defendant on November 30, 2009 at least ten (10) months after the disposition of this case was taken by November 30, 2009 is against the principle of trust protection, the principle of proportionality, the principle of equality, the principle of self-regulation), the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making, as well as against the principle of prohibition of unfair decision-making. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is an excessive disadvantage of the Plaintiff resulting from the disposition of this

2) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff, a trainee, issued a attendance card to D, who is a training teacher, to attend as proxy, so the Plaintiff did not remove E in accordance with the training regulations of this case, but received training expenses until the end of the training, by deceiving the Defendant. As such, training expenses that the Plaintiff received by false or other unlawful means are not 58,290 won, but 1,730,420 won. Accordingly, all of the disposition of this case are grounds for disposition, and the disposition of this case is subject to the old Vocational Development Act (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 208; hereinafter referred to as the "former Vocational Development Act").

B. Relevant legislation

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts recognized

1) Some contents of the instant consignment contract are as follows.

Article 1 (1) The plaintiff shall conduct training for trainees entrusted by the defendant.

(2) The Plaintiff shall observe the training rules and guide and supervise trainees so that they do not escape from active training, and endeavor to develop training techniques, curriculum, etc. in order to improve the quality of training.

Article 4 (2) When the plaintiff conducts legitimate training pursuant to the training regulations, the defendant shall pay training expenses to the plaintiff.

(4) Where training allowances have been paid to a person who is not eligible for training allowances due to the plaintiff's improper attendance verification, etc., the plaintiff shall refund the relevant amount to the defendant.

(6) The defendant shall pay training expenses calculated from the commencement date to the plaintiff only for trainees confirmed by the training regulations.

Article 8 The plaintiff shall accurately confirm and manage the attendance status of trainees, and shall assist trainees in promptly claiming training allowances.

Article 9 The defendant may take measures pursuant to Article 39 of the Training Regulations where the plaintiff falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where the training rules are violated;

2. Where it is deemed that the unemployed has no ability to conduct training, or where it is deemed inappropriate as a vocational training institution for the unemployed;

2) The facility of this case confirms the attendance of trainees by card, and according to the provision on the implementation of vocational skills development training such as unemployed persons (amended by the Rules of Ministry of Labor No. 577 of Jan. 22, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "training provision of this case"), where the attendance is not confirmed by card due to unavoidable reasons, it may enter the attendance status of trainees in the ex officio entry record book and enter them ex officio on the computer network (Article 30(4). Meanwhile, where a trainee is absent for more than five consecutive days without justifiable reasons such as natural disasters, if a trainee is absent for more than five consecutive days without any justifiable reason, he/she shall be excluded from the training subject (Article 31(1)1 and 5), but if a trainee fails to undergo a national examination, job examination, etc. related to training, he/she shall be deemed to have undergone training according to the number of days required (Article 30(2)).

(iii) management of attendance and receipt of training costs for E;

A) E, a trainee of the instant training course, left Canada for an interview for employment immigration from July 13, 2008 to the 20th day of the same month, and was absent from the instant training course from July 14, 2008 to 18 (Yday) of the same month.

B) On July 11, 2008, E, "D, a training teacher for the instant facility, must be employed in Canada for the next week. The following week, Friday, Friday, Friday, New Year’s Leave, Friday, New Year’s Malibly changed to be legitimate in attendance for 3 days, and D has provided D with his her friend card, and D, from July 14, 2008 to the 16th day of the same month, had been present with the e-day attendance card for 3 days. The 17th day of the same month and the 18th day of the same month were given leave.

C) The Plaintiff continued the instant training course against E and completed the instant training course. The Plaintiff received KRW 1,730,420 from the Defendant as training expenses for E, and the Plaintiff included KRW 58,290,00 received due to the Defendant’s failure to take the instant training course for three days from July 14, 2008 to the 16th day of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 6 (including each number), Eul evidence 6, 7, and 10, Eul evidence 6, 7, and 10, part of witness D of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination by issue

1) Whether the termination of the consignment contract is legitimate

A) Whether it falls under Article 16(2)2 of the former Functional Development Act

Sanction against violation of administrative laws is a sanction based on the objective fact of violation of administrative laws in order to achieve administrative purposes, and thus, a sanction may be imposed even if the violator has no intention or negligence, barring any special circumstance, such as where there is a justifiable reason not to cause any negligence on the part of the violation, and “any false or other unlawful means” referred to in Article 16(2)2 of the former Vocational Development Act means active and passive acts that are deemed unfair by deceptive means and other acts that may affect the decision on the payment of training expenses, notwithstanding the fact that training expenses cannot be paid in accordance with normal procedures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du4272, Jun. 11, 2009).

In this case, as acknowledged earlier, E, a trainee of the training course of this case, sent a training teacher's attendance card along with the request that he be allowed to handle the attendance, and D, from July 14, 2008 to the 16th day of the same month, was represented by an E-mail card for three days (the plaintiff constitutes a job interview for employment immigration, and thus, he shall be allowed to attend pursuant to Article 30 (2) [Attachment Table 1] of the Training Regulations, and even if it is not so, D shall be deemed to fall under the ground for recognition of attendance, and it shall not be allowed to allow D to intentionally attend the training without using an electronic computer card and intentionally attend the training, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that D, as a whole, was absent by the Plaintiff's attendance at the above 5th day after taking account of the fact that D's attendance was to be used only by the trainee, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that D's attendance at the training card of this case.

On the other hand, although there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff applied for training costs for three-day days in which he/she was absent falsely, even though he/she could have prevented or discovered the above act if he/she had been thoroughly educated and supervised training teachers, it can be viewed that he/she received training costs by falsely treating the fact of attendance for three-day days in which he/she was absent, so this constitutes "a case where he/she received training costs by fraudulent or other unlawful means" under Article 16 (2) 2 of the former Vocational Development Act.

Furthermore, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 1,730,420 paid to E as training costs by fraud or other improper means constitutes “the case of receiving training costs by fraud or other improper means,” and that the Plaintiff’s payment of training costs by treating the Plaintiff as having not been paid for three days from July 14, 2008 to the 16th day of the same month constitutes “the case of receiving training costs by fraudulent or other improper means.” However, the Plaintiff’s continued training without removing E constitutes “the case of violating the consignment contract by neglecting the management duty,” apart from the case of violation of the consignment contract, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff intentionally committed such act with knowledge that the Plaintiff intended to receive training costs by fraud or other improper means, and that it would be harsh to additionally collect training costs by additionally collecting training costs by fraud or other improper means beyond the refund of the training costs actually received by the Plaintiff, the portion constitutes “the case of receiving training costs by fraud or other improper means,” and that it would not constitute “the portion of the Plaintiff’s payment of training costs by fraud for 308 days.

B) Whether Article 16(2)3 of the former Vocational Development Act is applicable

In light of the aforementioned facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) comprehensively considering the training regulations of this case and the contents of the consignment contract for the training courses of this case, it is very important and essential in the process of occupational ability development training, (ii) the Plaintiff’s employee training teacher D has been present for three days in the manner of attending by using the training card for the trainee E, and (iii) the Plaintiff continued to conduct training for E without recognizing such circumstances due to neglect of management, etc. even though the Plaintiff was obligated to remove E upon requesting the attendance, and then received training fees after continuing to conduct training for E, it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s training conducted occupational ability development training in violation of the consignment contract under Article 16(2)3 of the Act without neglecting or implieding the attendance of D’s agency attendance and removing E.

C) According to the provisions of Article 16(2)2 and 3 of the Act on the Law of the Development of Vocational Skills, where a person entrusted with vocational skills development training receives or wants to receive training costs by fraudulent or other illegal means, an administrative agency should terminate the entrustment contract, and where vocational skills development training is conducted in violation of the entrustment contract, the entrustment contract can be terminated.

In the case of this case, as seen earlier, Article 16 (2) 2 and 3 of the Act applies, and thus, the cancellation disposition of the entrustment contract on the whole process and the training courses of this case is separately stated in the disposition of this case (Evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 1) where the grounds for the disposition are recognized, the termination disposition of the contract on the whole process and the termination disposition on the automobile maintenance process of this case. However, as seen earlier, it is only recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the entrustment contract of this case on the automobile maintenance process, and there is no other evidence to deem that there exists any other entrustment contract, the termination of the contract on the whole process

Therefore, the termination of the entrustment contract on the whole process and the training courses of this case is legitimate.

2) In full view of the provisions of Articles 16, 29, and 31 of the former Vocational Development Act and Articles 16, 29, 31, and 56 of the former Vocational Development Act, which were in force at the time of the Plaintiff’s violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and Articles 16, 29, 31, and 56 of the former Vocational Development Act, which were in force at the time of the instant disposition, the disposition to restrict the commission of workplace skill development training or to restrict the recognition of the course, to refund the amount paid or subsidized, and to additionally collect the amount of workplace skill development training contract, the disposition to revoke the designation of the designated occupational training establishment is a disposition to restrict the entrustment of workplace skill development training or to restrict the recognition of the course of the workplace skill development training. Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s violation was conducted at the time of the enforcement of the former Vocational Development Act, so long as the above disposition is more than after the amendment of the former Vocational Development Act.

B) According to Article 16(2)2, 3, and (3) of the Vocational Development Act and Article 6 [Attachment Table 1](b) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 20, Mar. 11, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply), with respect to restrictions on recognition of occupational ability development training for 1.5 months and occupational ability development training, where a person entrusted with occupational ability development training receives or intends to obtain training fees by fraud or other improper means, the entrustment contract may be terminated, and the entrustment of occupational ability development training and vocational ability development training lessons course may not be recognized within 5 years from the date of termination (Article 13-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). However, Article 16(3) of the same Act does not apply where the training expenses are less than 1 million won, which were conducted by the Plaintiff by fraud or other improper means, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute a ground for recognition of the entrusted training course under Article 16(2)3) of the Act for less than 16 months.

However, as seen earlier, the restriction on entrustment and recognition under Article 16(2)2 and (3) of the Vocational Development Act is not applicable, since the training costs that the Plaintiff received by fraudulent or other illegal means are less than one million won.

However, in the case of this case, since occupational ability development training was conducted in violation of a consignment agreement, it constitutes "a case where training personnel was operated or decided by false or other unlawful means", the defendant may impose a restriction on entrustment and recognition of the training course for one year pursuant to Article 16 (2) 3 and (3) of the Occupational Development Act, and Article 6 [Attachment 1] (b) (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 6 [Attachment 3] (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. Thus, the defendant's restriction on entrustment and recognition of the training course of this case on January 5, 190 is legitimate only within the limit of one year, and the exceeding part is unlawful, and this part shall be revoked (it is reasonable to revoke part of the above).

D) As to an order to return training costs of KRW 1,730,420

Article 16 (5) of the former Vocational Development Act provides that "the State or a local government may order a person whose entrustment contract is terminated pursuant to paragraph (2) to return all or part of the amount already paid or subsidized," and does not stipulate "the amount received by false or other unlawful means, unlike the latter part of the same paragraph that provides the grounds and scope of additional collection," so the scope of return is unclear. To clarify this, Article 16 (5) of the former Vocational Development Act (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008; Article 16 (5) of the former Vocational Development Act (amended by Act No. 9316, Dec. 31, 2008; Amended by Act No. 10337, May 31, 2010; the above provision was deleted by Act No. 1037 and the same provision was newly established under Article 56 (1) of the same Act. As seen earlier, this part of the amended Act is applicable.

However, in the case of this case, since training costs paid by false or other unlawful means are KRW 58,290, as seen earlier, the defendant can only order the return of the amount. Thus, the part exceeding KRW 58,290 of the disposition in this part should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

E) According to Article 56(3) of the Vocational Development Act, Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22604, Dec. 31, 2010) and Article 22-2(1)(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act with respect to additional collection of KRW 1,730,420, where the amount of subsidies granted to a person whose consignment contract was terminated by false or other unlawful means is less than one million won, an administrative agency may additionally collect an amount equivalent to five times the amount of subsidies (where there is no frequency of application for fraudulent payment of training costs during five years prior to the date of detection of the violation, it shall be three times the amount of subsidies), and where the amount is at least one million won, an amount equivalent to such amount may be additionally collected.

However, the defendant regarded the plaintiff's illegal receipt amount as KRW 1,730,420 and additionally collected the amount corresponding thereto. As seen earlier, the defendant's disposition on this part is unlawful, and in light of the above provisions, the defendant has the discretion to additionally collect the amount equivalent to three times the amount of the above 58,290 won, and the above unlawful disposition on this part should be revoked in its entirety.

F) As to the cancellation of designation of vocational training facilities, in this case, the Defendant issued a disposition to restrict the commission of the entire process to the Plaintiff for a period of 1.5 months, and to restrict the commission and recognition of the instant training courses for 1.5 months, and among them, only the disposition to restrict the entrustment and recognition of the instant training courses for one year is lawful, and the instant facilities, other than the instant training courses, also recognized that they were designated as vocational training facilities for the “electronic field” processing, assembling and repair, administrative support, administrative support, construction, construction, industrial application, design development, administrative management, service management, and other services. Thus, the Defendant cannot revoke the designation of the vocational training facilities for the instant facilities pursuant to the proviso to Article 31(1)3 of the Vocational Development Act, and therefore, the disposition in this part shall be revoked as it is unlawful as it does not have any grounds for disposition.

3) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused or not

A) Of the instant dispositions, the cancellation disposition of the consignment contract is in accordance with the proviso of Article 16(2) of the former Vocational Development Act, which requires the pertinent disposition, and the circumstance asserted by the Plaintiff does not constitute a violation of the principle of trust protection, etc. or a deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

B) Of the instant disposition, the remaining parts of the instant disposition (one-year entrustment and restriction on recognition, training costs 1,730,420 won out of the order to refund training costs 58,290 won) are health class, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence. In other words, occupational ability development training is conducted with limited financial resources, such as budget and employment insurance fund under the Employment Insurance Act, and public interest is very high to promote the improvement of workers’ employment security, social and economic status, and the improvement of company's productivity due to the instant disposition. (2) In particular, in order to achieve the purpose of occupational ability development training and prevent unfair claims for training costs, it is highly likely to undermine the foundation of the occupational ability development training system itself. (3) The Plaintiff’s training instructor’s substitute attendance is due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform duty to attend the training course, and further, the Defendant’s act of denying vocational ability development training from receiving the remainder of training costs due to an unlawful act cannot be deemed to violate the aforementioned principle of proportion within the scope of its own discretion.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

4) Sub-committee

Ultimately, the part regarding the termination of the instant training course during the instant disposition, the part regarding the one-year entrustment and restriction on recognition of the instant training course, and the order to refund KRW 58,290 for training expenses is lawful. However, the part regarding the order to refund KRW 1.5 months from October 16, 2010 to November 30, 201, ② the part regarding the instant training course exceeds one year from November 30, 2009 to January 13, 201, ③ the portion regarding the restriction on entrustment and recognition of the instant training course, ③ the portion regarding the illegally received amount exceeding KRW 58,290 out of the refund of KRW 1,730,420, ④ the additional collection of KRW 1,730,420, and ⑤ the disposition to revoke the designation of a vocational ability development training establishment is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition and the remaining claims are dismissed for reasons. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, the part against the plaintiff which is additionally revoked under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the part which exceeds 58,290 won out of the return of (i) the illegally received amount of 1,730,420 won, (ii) additional collection of more than 1,730,420 won among the disposition of this case, and (iii) revocation of designation of workplace skill development training establishment shall be revoked, respectively. The remaining appeal of the plaintiff and the defendant shall be dismissed for reasons, and all of them shall be dismissed for reasons of this decision, and it shall be deemed that there is an urgent need to prevent damage that can be caused to the plaintiff due to the execution of the revocation of designation of workplace skill development training establishment among the disposition of this case, and it shall be deemed that the effect of this part of the disposition of this case

Judgment of the presiding judge;

Judges Yang Sung-tae

Judges Yang Dong-hwan

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.