beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.05.21 2014고정2294

음악산업진흥에관한법률위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a singing practice room with a trade name called “Dnoman Bank” on the first floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C underground.

1. At around 00:06 on June 21, 2014, the Defendant sold three cans, which are alcoholic beverages, to customers E at the above singing practice room, and one bottle of cans, which are alcoholic beverages, to customers E.

2. The Defendant, upon receiving a demand from the above E to give a letter, received KRW 20,00 per hour, and gave a letter to the letter, and, for the purpose of profit-making, assisted F to provide a guest with a singing or dancing and encourage F to provide a customer with an entertainment by singing or dancing.

In the facts charged, the title of paragraph (2) is "receive loan arrangement", the last part of the facts charged is stated as "receive loan arrangement", and the part that "for profit-making purposes" is not stated as "for profit-making purposes" and it is stated as if the prosecution was instituted against the violation of Article 34(2) and Article 22(1)4 of the Music Industry Promotion Act

However, the applicable provisions of the indictment contain Articles 34(4) and 22(2) of the Music Industry Promotion Act, and the statutory penalty for a violation under Articles 34(2) and 22(1)4 of the Music Industry Promotion Act is “a imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won,” while the statutory penalty for a violation under Articles 34(4) and 22(2) is “a fine not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding 3 million won,” the prosecutor is deemed to have written some errors in the facts charged while instituting a prosecution for a violation under Articles 34(4) and 22(2) of the Music Industry Promotion Act.

In addition, even if the indictment is partially revised without modification, it is judged that the exercise of the defendant's right of defense is not affected by the contents of evidence and the pleading process.