The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 2,00,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) G (representative H and hereinafter “special activity enterprise”) which the Defendants are the suppliers of special activities (English)

(3) Article 54(3)6 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11627, Jan. 23, 2013; 20,000 won per day of child care) provides that the supply price of a special activity contract entered into with a special entity constitutes the actual supply price, and the Defendants do not have a duty to notify the guardian of the fact that they receive a refund of the money under the pretext of honorarium after the special activity entity. Thus, there was a deception of fraud, or each former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 10789, Jun. 7, 2011; 200,000 won per day of child care) provides that Article 54(3)6 of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 11627, Jan. 23, 2013; 200,00 won) provides the same statutory punishment as the elements of “child care facilities” under Article 54(3)6 of the same Act.

The Infant Care Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Gu Infant Care Act") shall be referred to in general below.

2) The Defendants’ act and the guardian’s special activity expenses cannot be deemed as having been used in an unlawful manner under Article 54(3)6 of the Act. 2) The Defendants’ guardian’ act and the guardian’s special activity expenses cannot be deemed as having causation between the Defendants’ act and the guardian’s special activity expenses.

3. The Defendants had no change in the amount of special activity expenses to be received from guardians before receiving the money from special activity enterprises and thereafter, and the education for special activity for childcare children was normally provided.