A. There was no fact of selling alcoholic beverages, and no dance hall was installed.

B. A place was lent to a strike business, and the Defendant did not run an entertainment drinking house business.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s evidence duly adopted and examined: (i) Nonindicted Party witness at the lower court, who pretended to regulate customers on August 2, 2014, was installed with sound facilities, such as radars, and special lighting facilities, and dance halls; (ii) stated that customers were dancing; and (iii) that they sold alcohol and a dance house (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 151 pages of the trial record); and (iv) in light of the fact that photographs, which the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages to customers and offered a space for dancing, are posted on the Internet screen (see, e.g., each photograph) in which the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages and installed a dance hall.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant, in July 2005 to August 201 of each year, provided a business entity with a similar type to the instant club in the pention from July 2015, 2015, and ② each year, the place where the business entity was changed but the place where the business was provided was determined as the instant pentium, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the business entity was engaged in entertainment tavern business in the instant pention.

C. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Sung Ho-ho (Presiding Judge) et al. and leaptables