The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant believed the defendant's statement and D's confirmation without examining the reporter F and the defendant did not prove that the defendant had engaged in the singinging business, since the anti-sing, drum, micro, etc. always have been installed and the customers can sings at any time, and the defendant allowed the customers to sings by using the above facilities. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances, i.e., ① the restaurant of this case, which is acknowledged by the testimony of the witness F of the trial, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the confirmation letter prepared by D, the field photograph, the business report certificate, and the testimony of the witness F:

In light of the place, form, etc. where the above facilities are installed, the number of stories, etc. appears to have been performed at the above stage, and the defendant seems to have been actually engaged in a performance at the above stage. ② The witness F of the trial at the trial court stated that “D was performing a public performance at the time of the report, but the customer was able to sing down his own singing, and the customer was not inside his house (the defendant's side). Other persons than D did not see that other persons except D were able to sing. At the time. The restaurant at the time stated to the effect that “the restaurant at this case was reported to be a general restaurant, and thus, it was permitted to have a public performance for the purpose of installing a public performance in a space separate from the guest seat at the place of business.” < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 3664, Mar. 6, 2006>