A. The Defendants asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the production of music records and music video products in accordance with Article 16 of the Music Industry Promotion Act in their operation E (hereinafter “instant place of business”) and did not run a singing practice room business.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “singing practice room business” under Article 2 subparag. 13 of the Music Industry Promotion Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles on “sing practice room business” under a different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendants’ act identical to the facts charged of the instant case, unlike the previous facts, was performed in order to provide the general public with an opportunity to directly produce music records and music video products with an opportunity to directly produce music records and music video products, and is not contrary to the social norms.

C. The lower court’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing (each of six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendants were aware of each of the following circumstances as indicated in the judgment, namely, ① the signboards, etc. installed inside and outside the building of the instant place of business by the Defendants are indicated as “E”, but the part “I” among them is considerably small compared to the part “J” and is likely to be perceived as “J”. ② The video production devices established by the Defendants in the instant place of business are the same as those of the general singing practice, and even if using the said video production devices, customers can see only singing without producing a video.