When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a singing practice room business operator who operates D's singing in the third floor of the building in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.

No karaoke machine business operator shall employ any entertainment loan or arrange any other business.

Nevertheless, at around 21:30 on November 28, 2013, the Defendant arranged for a entertainment loan by having six persons, such as E, who are entertainment visitors, drinks with six persons, including F, who are customers, or provide entertainment to customers by singing or dancing, in return for receiving KRW 25,00 per hour.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police officer against E, G, H, I, and J;

1. The K's statement;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 34 (2) and Article 22 (1) 4 of the Music Industry Promotion Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant sold alcoholic beverages worth KRW 60,00,000 in total of the market price of alcoholic beverages to six customers, such as 12,00, in the instant singing room around November 28, 2013, around November 28, 2013, when a singing practice room business operator, who is a singing practice room business operator, was prohibited from selling or providing alcoholic beverages.

2. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial for judgment is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, so long as there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001). The Defendant asserted that the Defendant only sold to the instant singing room 5 customers with no alcohol alcohol content in the instant instant instant cup, but did not sell beer.