However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a person who operates two general restaurants with the trade name of “C” and “D” in the Seoul Jung-gu parking lot B in Seoul Central Government.

1. A person who intends to engage in a general restaurant business shall report to the competent authority. However, the Defendant, without reporting to the competent authority, provided that, from August 12, 2015 to July 21, 2016, the Defendant was engaged in a general restaurant business that, without having reported to the competent authority, prepared and sold food worth of KRW 500,000 per month to customers with the name of “C” and the name of “C” in size of 133 square meters.

2. A person who intends to engage in a general restaurant business shall report to the competent authority. However, the Defendant, without reporting to the competent authority on April 10, 2016, operated a general restaurant business that prepared and sells food worth KRW 300,000 per month to customers, with the name of “D” and the name of “D” from around July 21, 2016 to around July 21, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each accusation;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Family relation certificate;

1. Application of statutes on business registration certificates;

1. Subparagraph 1 of Article 97 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 37 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to four years;

2. Although it was sentenced to a fine of KRW 50,00,000 as of August 11, 2015 for the business of failing to report “C” restaurant on the criminal facts stated in the sentence of sentence, the above restaurant business continued to be operated and the size of business was expanded by not opening a report to “D” restaurant at the location adjacent to the D” around April 2016, and the fact that the business continues to be operated until the date of the sentence of this case is disadvantageous.

On the other hand, there is no history of punishment exceeding fine.