2. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court acknowledged that, although, upon the prosecutor’s request of customers around 01:00 on June 26, 2015, E was aware that, despite the fact that, despite being aware of the fact that E made a call on a one-time entertainment room for drinking alcohol with customers, he/she provided entertainment services, E merely provided entertainment services by call on the so-called news room at the time, and there was no evidence to prove the fact that the Defendant or E directly employed entertainment workers at the “D,” and therefore, E, an employee of the Defendant, “the entertainment shop business.”

The charges of this case were acquitted on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The facts charged in a criminal trial must be proved by the prosecutor, and the judge should be convicted with evidence of probative value, which leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the degree of conviction, even if the defendant’s doubt of guilt does not reach the above conviction, it is inevitable to determine the defendant’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant and E stated in the written statement of each person as “I am for three hours, one customer upon request of I am, and three hours,” in the police investigation, “I am out of contact with the former one with a number known by the former one.”