beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2013.06.13 2013고정216

식품위생법위반

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 50.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is an employee of the 'E' in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D, which is located in the place where food service business is conducted for the purpose of profit-making, and anyone is prohibited from drinking alcoholic beverages with customers, having guests provide entertainment services through singing or dancing, or arranging other people to provide entertainment services. On November 2, 2012, at around 19:05, he/she arranged to provide entertainment services by having male customers drink alcoholic beverages with only one female loan on his/her name on condition that he/she receives 30,000 won per hour from male customers who find the place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A written statement;

1. The Defendant’s assertion as to the Defendant’s management ledger for permission of food service business, video CDs, and internal investigation report (hereinafter referred to as the “dynamic image analysis/dynamic image analysis 2”) did not allow female visitors to engage in entertainment by having them drink with the said F or singing together with the said F. However, the Defendant denied the facts charged on the ground that only one female guest, who was a guest of the said dan, was engaged in drinking and singing together with F, and the facts charged are sufficiently recognized based on each of the above evidence.

Rather, G appears to have attended as a witness in this court in order to prove the defendant's change of the defendant, clearly stated that there was two female customers who had been in the above danran bar at the time, while the defendant made a contradictory statement, such as where three female customers who had been in the above danran bar were in an investigative agency and one of them stated that they drink with F, so credibility of the defendant's appeal is doubtful.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 98 of the Food Sanitation Act and Articles 98 and 44 (3) of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of punishment, and the selection of fines;

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