However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Although the Defendant obtained permission from the competent authority to run an entertainment business, on October 7, 2013, at around 21:30, the Defendant operated a trade name “C” on the 2nd floor of Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and no permission from the competent authority, and operated a entertainment bar business in a way that customers D and his family members receive singing at the said place without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A report on investigation by telephone;

1. Business notification certificate - Application of statutes;

1. Relevant Article 94 subparagraph 3 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 37 (1) of the same Act, the selection of imprisonment (the fact that the defendant commits the instant crime even though he/she was sentenced to a fine twice for the same kind of crime in fact);

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, and that the defendant has no ability to punish more than a suspended sentence) is more than