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

The Defendant is a person who has obtained a general restaurant business license from the number of Pyeongtaek-gun in the name of “C” in Gyeonggi-si B.

Any person who intends to operate an entertainment mainly shall obtain permission from the administrative agency having jurisdiction over the type of business and the place of business by type of business in accordance with the Food Sanitation Act.

Nevertheless, on July 10, 2020, the Defendant installed a swimming pool, a swimming pool, a stage, a sound facility, and a lighting room at the above C business site, and sold alcoholic beverages (BAR) and sold alcoholic beverages by allowing employees to take drinking to customers, and operated entertainment establishments by using music and special lighting at the DJ room where the DJ stand.

Accordingly, the defendant was engaged in entertainment center business without obtaining permission for the number of regular military units.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the date of the second public trial, in the case);

1. The images recorded in the field photographing screen pictures and CDs;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Investigation report (C Search Results), attachment;

1. Application of statutes as a result of C search;

1. Article 94 (1) 3 and Article 37 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and Articles 94 (1) 3 and 37 of the same Act concerning selective punishment, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is to recognize all the charges of this case at the latest, and reflects the Defendant’s fault in depth, and the Defendant considered favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s failure to obtain a fine of KRW 3 million due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of alcohol measurement) around 2007, such as the Defendant’s failure to obtain a punishment for a summary order against the Defendant is somewhat excessive.

In addition, the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, occupation, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., are shown.