All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In a case where several orders of the judgment, such as partial conviction and partial acquittal of the case prosecuted for concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment of this court, are rendered separately from other parts, and the part not appealed by both parties becomes final and conclusive. Thus, in a case where only the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance that rendered a judgment of not guilty or partially guilty of the concurrent crimes, the part of the judgment of the first instance that was not appealed by the defendant and the prosecutor, which became final and conclusive as the expiration of the appeal period, is only a public prosecution against the judgment of not guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010). The court below found the defendants guilty of violation of the Act on the Management of Subsidies and the facts of each of the judgment in the indictment against the defendants, and found them not guilty as to the violation of the Education of Infants Act.

In this regard, only the non-guilty portion is appealed by the prosecutor, and the scope of appeal is stipulated in the petition of appeal submitted by the prosecutor (section 446 of the record of trial). However, although the grounds for appeal stated in the prosecutor’s petition of appeal and the reasoning of appeal are only erroneous and misapprehension of the facts and legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Education of Infants by the Defendants, the conviction portion

As to the guilty portion, both the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the conviction was determined separately as it is and excluded from the scope of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles) is that a person who acquires the right to manage a private kindergarten, such as the Defendants, falls under the “person who establishes and operates a private kindergarten” as provided by Article 8(4) of the Infant Education Act, but the judgment of the court below is interpreted differently and thus, the Defendants who take over the right to manage the private kindergarten without obtaining the authorization of the superintendent