The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant works as an employee from the restaurant (title of trade name: E) of this case, but the court below recognized that the defendant had operated a general restaurant business without reporting. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant acquired the right to the restaurant business of this case from F around December 2, 2012 and operated the restaurant business in this case, and it is evident that the report on the business of this case was not made at the time. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

① From March 1, 2011 to September 2012, F stated at an investigative agency that, while operating a restaurant in the name of G, from March 2011 to September 2012, F, the Defendant was in excess of the instant restaurant. In light of the fact that: (a) the police officer who arrived at the instant restaurant in the course of interference with business was asked about who is the proprietor of the instant restaurant; and (b) the Defendant asked him about whether he is the proprietor of the instant restaurant; and (c) the Defendant asked him about whether he is the proprietor of the instant restaurant; (d) the Defendant was credibility in the initial statement that F transferred his right to the instant restaurant business

(F) A summary order of KRW 70,000 was issued on the ground that he/she was engaged in the restaurant business of this case without reporting the business during the above period. (2) At the original court, F stated in the original court that he/she did not transfer the restaurant business of this case to the defendant, but employed the defendant as a host machine, but he/she stated that he/she did not pay any money in the form of remuneration to the defendant, and made a statement to the defendant to pay the rent for the restaurant of this case. The defendant's profits from the restaurant business of this case.