Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operated the “C Lifelong Education Center” in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

A person who operates a child-care center may entrust a child-care teacher to a training institution to conduct workplace skill development training, and where a child-care teacher has completed the training, he/she may receive subsidies from the Minister of Labor for the expenses incurred therein.

Provided, That in order to receive such subsidies, a business owner shall enter into an entrustment contract with a training institution and pay training expenses to the training institution, and an infant care teacher who is subject to education shall attend at least 80/100 of the training hours and complete the training course.

Around March 29, 2013, the above employer of the childcare center received training expenses from the employee in charge of the Human Resources Development Service of the victim from E who is the business owner of the "D Child Care Center" and submitted a false attendance and a false application for subsidies for training expenses for the development of workplace skills, tax account statement, etc. as if the child care teacher actually received training expenses from the employee in charge of the Human Resources Development Service of the victim, who is the business owner of the D Child Care Center.

However, in fact, E did not pay training expenses for infant care teachers at a lifelong education center operated by the defendant, or infant care teachers did not attend at least 80/100.

The Defendant, on April 2, 2013, had the victim deposit KRW 420,00 with the national bank account in the name of E, etc., and had the victim receive a total of KRW 43,971,130 from March 2, 2013 to March 2014, the Defendant received a subsidy equivalent to the total of KRW 43,971,130 from the victim as shown in the separate crime list, and received a refund from the said business owner for training expenses.

As a result, the defendant was granted property by deceiving the victim, and received the subsidy by false application.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's person;