A. As to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act, the Defendant provided food to the customers of the instant tea house, such as this part of the facts charged, but the instant tea house does not constitute a general restaurant under the Food Sanitation Act and does not require a report on food entertainment business.

B. With respect to the violation of the Public Sanitary Control Act, the instant tea camp does not constitute a lodging business under the Public Sanitary Control Act and does not require a report on accommodation business.

(c)

In light of the fact that the Defendant took measures in accordance with the statutory interpretation and application guidance of public officials at the time of truth, the instant act constitutes a justifiable act prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act or an error of law prescribed in Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

(d)

In light of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the violation of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 36(2) of the Food Sanitation Act provides that the detailed types and scope of food entertainment business shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 21 subparag. 8(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act provides that “general restaurant business: business of cooking and selling foods, which is allowed to drink along with meals” is “business of cooking and selling foods, and of which drinking is allowed to be conducted incidental to meals,” and ② The Defendant is a program for reducing the body of persons engaged in sports, lodging and lodging at an investigative agency at least one week for non-residents.

It is a simple meal, such as a death of a brued, that is, a single-speaker, a single-speaker, and a speaker, provide simple food, such as chickens, after cooking food materials directly, and food from the outside.