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

The Defendant did not obtain permission to engage in singran business from the head of Lingldong, and from February 25, 2016, the Defendant was in the same year.

3. From around 00:05, up to 14.14. to 100:05, at a general restaurant (83.5m2) with the trade name “D,” which is operated by the Defendant, i.e., 10 tables, 40 chairs, 1 automatic reflectrs, 1 caption image devices, 1 microphones, etc., provide customers with music, and sell alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages, and engage in entertainment business by cooking and selling alcoholic beverages.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A copy of the arrest report of the case, a copy of the business report, a copy of the field photo, and a copy of the control report on public morals business place [the defendant and his defense counsel who sings in a restaurant is not a customer but a customer, so the defendant did not engage in the singinging business. However, according to evidence, including the witness’s legal statement, which is the control police officer, the defendant asserts that he did not engage in the singing business. However, according to the evidence, it is obvious that the person who sings in the defendant’s restaurant at the time of the control of the case is a customer, and the defendant is found to have

1. Article 94(1)3 and Article 37(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (Amended by Act No. 14022, Feb. 3, 2016) comprehensively including relevant legal provisions on criminal facts

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to bear litigation costs;