logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.08 2016노295
영유아보육법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) found that the Defendant violated Article 54(2) of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 13321, May 18, 2015; hereinafter “former Infant Care Act”) by obtaining basic infant care fees equivalent to subsidies by fraud or other improper means, as stated in the instant facts charged, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is a person who operates a “D Child Care Center” (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”) in Daegu-gu, Seogu.

No person shall receive a subsidy or divert any subsidy by fraud or other improper means.

The defendant from June 1, 2014 to the same year.

7. Until June 31, 201, the child E of the Child Care Center of this case (year 1) left the Republic of Korea on June 12, 2014 and was falsely registered so that he/she can receive full amount of basic child care fees in the Child Care Integration System, which is a basic child care fee application program, even though he/she did not appear in the Republic of Korea on June 12, 2014.

In the basic childcare fee support program implemented by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, 174,000 won shall be subsidized for a child under the age of 1 who has attended a childcare center for at least 11 days.

As a result, the defendant claims that the above child was present for at least 11 days, and made a false claim on July 9, 2014 and the same year.

8. In November, 198, a total of 348,000 basic childcare fees for two months were received from the Seo-gu, Daegu Metropolitan City.

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case on the grounds that detailed reasons were stated from Part 9 to Part 4 to Part 14 of the Decision of the lower court.

C. The lower court, based on the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the lower court’s judgment, found the facts charged of the instant case.

arrow