풍속영업의규제에관한법률위반
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not contain any instruction or conspiracy to allow G and I to engage in obscene acts such as this case, and although G and I engaged in obscene acts in this case, i.e., e., obscenity’s failure to monitor the Defendants, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the charges. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The Defendants led to the confession of the facts charged at the first trial date of the lower court, and the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged of the instant case by taking full account of the evidence in its holding, including the Defendants’ legal statements, G, and I’s respective police interrogation records, and the investigation reports analyzing the video at the time of detection.
Although the Defendants reversed the confession statement at the court below for the first time and disputed the facts charged of this case, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the developments leading up to the crackdown of this case or the situation at the time of control, the management form of the entertainment shop, G, and I’s police statements, the Defendants, as co-owners of the entertainment shop of this case, recognized and admitted the obscene acts of the employees conducted within the main place as well as the fact that they provided the obscene acts of this case.
The Defendants, with the assistance of a private legal counsel, made a statement to the purport to recognize the facts charged of this case in the original court. In light of the background leading up to the Defendant’s confession statement, the Defendants’ reversal of the statement on the grounds that the Defendants were sentenced to a fine, not a suspended sentence, to the Defendants at the time of the trial (see, e.g., the reasoning of appeal) and the facts charged of this case, the Defendant’s confession made a statement
that is determined by the court.