식품위생법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning the violation of the Food Sanitation Act) has credibility of D’s statement consistent with this part of the facts charged, so the Defendant is deemed to have engaged in entertainment tavern business by engaging in entertainment drinking club business without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of unjust sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one
B. Defendant 1) Meritorious misunderstanding of facts (the part on the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act) by the Defendant (hereinafter “this case’s entertainment bar”) operated by D by the Defendant
(2) The lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles regarding unjust sentencing, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding unjust sentencing, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. In the case of a prosecutor ex officio, the applicable provisions of the Food Sanitation Act to the facts charged in the case of this case concerning the violation of Article 94 (1) 3 and Article 37 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act shall be applied mutatis mutandis under Article 98 (1) 1 and Article 44 (3) of the Food Sanitation Act, and a person who intends to operate an entertainment tavern business shall obtain permission from the competent authority under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree
Nevertheless, the Defendant agreed to give KRW 30,00 per hour to E, a female entertainment borrower, who was provided with the name of operating the so-called sidewalk at the time and place specified in Paragraph (1) of the facts charged of this case, and allowed E to drink together with other customers.