The violation of facility standards under the Food Sanitation Act, which is the facts charged of this case, and the unauthorized entertainment business, for which a summary order became final and conclusive, are different from each other’s applicable provisions of laws, protected legal interests and forms of crime, and the basic facts cannot be deemed the same in relation to concurrent crimes. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that acquitted the facts charged of this case

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On October 28, 2003, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant reported the business of food services (general restaurants) in the name of the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office on October 28, 2003, the name of the head of Songpa-gu, 273-5, and 6, the name of the head of the business who actually runs the food services. Although a person engaged in food services is equipped with facilities meeting the facility criteria, he/she installed each singing room within approximately 2-3 square meters of the size of 2-3, with the installation of each singing room within the said 2-3 square meters of the number of customers, in violation of the facility standards of 30,000,000 won, 10,000,000 won, and 50,000,000 won, and 10,50,000,00,000 won, and 7,00,00,000 won.

B. On October 29, 200, the court below found that the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 300,00 (hereinafter referred to as "the summary order of this case") on October 23, 2003 on the charge of violation of Articles 74 and 22 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, on the ground that "the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 300,000 (hereinafter referred to as "the summary order of this case") on October 23, 2003 with the trade name of "Otade clinic" at around 273-5, 270, 270, 300, and 40, and that the summary order of this case became final and conclusive on February 13, 204 on the ground that the above summary order of this case had res judicata effect on the criminal facts of this case on the same facts as the summary order of this case.

3. Judgment of party members

Whether the facts charged or criminal facts are identical or not shall be based on the defendant's act and its social factual relations in mind with the legal functions of identity of facts, and its normative elements shall also be included in consideration (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2642, Jul. 11, 2003). Meanwhile, in the case of an unauthorized entertainment business for which the summary order of this case became final and conclusive, the res judicata effect on the business prior to November 23, 2003, which is the date of its issuance, shall be the business crime.

However, according to the records, ① the violation of facility standards (the act of installing a nanotechnology) which is the charge of this case is in fact identical to the point of an unauthorized entertainment business for which a summary order has already been issued, the place of the crime, facilities, and size of the facility (the number of rooms is nine, and the number of the recorded summary order is 13, but the number of the singing bars is equal to 9). ② The time of the crime is no longer than 5 days from the date of detection of unauthorized Kran Business, and ③ the defendant is deemed to have operated the same type of business during the period between the days of detection of the above facts charged. ④ The defendant's establishment of an unauthorized Kran Business as described in the facts charged is deemed to have operated the same type of business without permission, and ④ the main contents of this case was able to singing using the singing cycle without permission, and thus, it is reasonable to consider the relation between this case's facility standards (the act of installing a street bar) and the unauthorized act of this case, which has become final and conclusive, as the act of this case's legal interests and interests of this case's are identical to 98.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that acquitted the facts charged in this case is just, and the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung-mun (Presiding Judge)