[식품위생법위반][공2017상,198]
The meaning of entertainment taverns installed with amusement facilities under the food sanitation Acts and subordinate statutes, and whether entertainment facilities installed outside the rooms are included in entertainment taverns (affirmative)
Article 36(1)3 of the Food Sanitation Act provides that a person who intends to engage in food service business shall be equipped with facilities meeting the facility standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, and Article 36(2) provides that the detailed types and scope of food service business under Article 36(1)3 shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. According to the delegation, an entertainment bar business under Article 21 Subparag. 8(d) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act provides that an entertainment bar business is mainly engaged in cooking and selling alcoholic beverages, and an entertainment bar business is permitted to employ entertainment workers or to install entertainment facilities and to allow customers to singing or dance, and Article 22(2) provides that “entertainment facilities” refers to dance halls installed to allow workers engaged in entertainment or customers to dance. Meanwhile, Article 36 [Attachment Table 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act provides that the place where an indoor entertainment drinking house is installed shall be separated from the place where an indoor entertainment hall is installed other than a building independent of a food service business license or a food service business license, or an indoor entertainment facility.
Article 36(1)3 and (2) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 37(1) and Article 94(1)3 of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 12496, Mar. 18, 2014); Article 21 subparag. 8(d) and Article 22(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act; Article 36 [Attachment Table 14] of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act
Defendant
Defendant
Law Firm Daur Law, Attorney Syi
Suwon District Court Decision 2016No206 decided May 17, 2016
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Article 36(1)3 of the Food Sanitation Act provides that a person who intends to engage in food service business shall be equipped with facilities meeting the facility standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, and Article 36(2) provides that the detailed types and scope of food service business under Article 36(1)3 shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. According to the delegation, an entertainment bar business among food service businesses is mainly engaged in cooking and selling alcoholic beverages, and an entertainment bar business is allowed to employ entertainment workers or install entertainment facilities, and customers are allowed to sing or dance. Article 22(2) provides that “the above entertainment facility” refers to a dance hall installed for entertainment workers or customers to enjoy dancing. Meanwhile, Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 36 of the Food Sanitation Act provide that a place where an entertainment drinking house is installed under the food service business under Article 36 of the same Act shall be excluded from a place where an indoor entertainment hall is installed, other than a business license of food service business or a place where an indoor entertainment hall is installed and sold.
2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows. From the summer of 2009 to August 2, 2014, the Defendant installed one swimming pool, the table, approximately 30, a stage space, lighting facilities, sound equipment, etc. without obtaining permission from the competent authority, and operated entertainment bar business by employing a specialized DNA (DJ) to make music cleep, selling alcoholic beverages, etc. to customers who visited with an entrance fee of KRW 50,00 from KRW 20,000 to KRW 50,00,000, while selling alcoholic beverages, etc.
In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds that the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages and installed a dance hall for entertainment bar business.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant provisions and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on entertainment bar business and school building offenders under the Food Sanitation Act
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)