beta
무죄
(영문) 창원지방법원 2008. 2. 14. 선고 2007노1435 판결

[식품위생법위반][미간행]

Escopics

Defendant

Appellant. An appellant

Defendant

Prosecutor

Kim Jong-jin

Defense Counsel

Attorney Kim Jong-soo (Korean National Assembly Line)

Judgment of the lower court

Changwon District Court Decision 2006 High Court Decision 2336 Decided July 27, 2007

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

1. The court below acknowledged the defendant's ground of appeal that "the defendant is a person who conducts drinking house with the trade name "(trade name omitted omitted)" from Jinhae-si, with no permission from the competent authority, and 2 studio 1:00 on May 30, 206, with a large scale of 30 studio 2, a small one studio and four studio 2, and a structure and studio 3 with business facilities, such as a kitchen room, which was employed by the witness as an entertainment worker, as an evidence of partial statement by the police officers against the non-indicted 2, a written statement by the non-indicted 1, a copy of the business report by the non-indicted 1, a copy of the business report, and an on-site photograph." The court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that the defendant's motion to amend the indictment of the non-indicted 1, an employee of the non-indicted 1, an employee of the non-indicted 3, which had no effect on the defendant's appeal.

2. The facts charged as modified against the defendant are as follows: "The defendant reported general restaurants in the name of "(trade name omitted)" at Jindo-dong (Land Number omitted) in Jindo-si on May 16, 2006, and operated the main points. At around May 21, 2006, the defendant installed a chair, a table, and installed in the 4 studio separate from the main points in the 200 studio on May 30, 2006, and operated an entertainment business in the manner of cooking and selling mainly alcoholic beverages to the non-indicted 1 and 4, a guest who found his place in the studio, and even if the defendant submitted the 2nd class of alcoholic beverages, it can be acknowledged that the defendant was not guilty of the acts of selling the 2nd class of alcoholic beverages as a general entertainment business." Thus, according to Article 7 subparagraph 8 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, the defendant's act of selling the 3nd class of alcoholic beverages as an entertainment business.

Doing Judge (Presiding Judge)