식품위생법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant reported a music record or music-video production business, not a dan business without permission, and conducted a business pertaining thereto, but the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles
2. Determination
A. The facts charged in the instant case do not mean that the Defendant did not run a danran business without permission, and the Defendant violated facility standards by installing sound and reflect facilities in the eight guest rooms of the said establishment while running a general restaurant business with the trade name “C” around March 13, 2014. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the Defendant did not operate a general restaurant business is not the Defendant’s general restaurant business, thereby examining whether the Defendant violated the facility standards under the Acts and subordinate statutes related to food sanitation while running a general restaurant business.
(b) A person who intends to operate the following businesses shall have facilities meeting the facility standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister:
(2) The detailed types and scope of business under each subparagraph of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.
Standards for facilities by type of business under Article 36 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act shall be as specified in attached Table 14.
[Attachment 14] Criteria for Facilities by Business Category (Related to Article 36)
8. Facility standards for food service business;
(a) Common facility standards 1) It shall be separated from independent buildings, or facilities used for purposes other than those for which a business license or business report of food service business has been made;
C. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the instant case, the Defendant reported general restaurant business on February 19, 2014 with the trade name “C” in Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B 1701, and received transfer of business from H, and thereafter operated the said business in the name of the Defendant from that time.