The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a director of D, a foundation, who actually operates the foundation.

Any person who intends to establish and operate a private teaching institute shall prepare facilities and equipment and register his/her personal information, curriculum, name of instructors, tuition fees, facilities and equipment, etc. with the superintendent of education under the conditions as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Nevertheless, from August 2013 to December 2013, the Defendant established “G” in the F building located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, and opened lectures, such as Pianno, small, valley, beams, and dynamics, and hired specialized instructors, and recruited thirty students from 160,000 to 240,000 won per month, and did not register with the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Accusation against an operator of a non-registered private teaching institute, written confirmation, and application of statutes governing field photographs;

1. Article 22 (1) 1 and Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and elective Private Teaching Institutes for Criminal Facts and Extracurricular Lessons;

1. Penalty of one million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Apr. 1, 2006)

1. The gist of the assertion is that the instant “G” was operated on the sixth floor of F, which is a lifelong educational establishment, and Article 2 subparag. 1 proviso of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons (hereinafter “Private Teaching Institutes Act”).

The establishment and operation of "G" is not subject to the Private Institutes Act, but D rather a foundation.

2. The judgment is based on the proviso of Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Private Institutes Act, as alleged by the defense counsel.

The clause is subject to the Lifelong Education Act.