A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who jointly operates a general restaurant under the trade name of “E” located in C and C in the city of the Government of Gyeonggi-si.

Any person shall file a business report under the Food Sanitation Act with the competent administrative agency in order to operate a general restaurant business.

The Defendant, in collusion with C, did not report to the competent authority from October 7, 2016 to September 20, 2017, and provided with cooling, gas facilities, etc. in a space of about 30 square meters in the trade name of “E” at the above place, and installed tent and 50 gas facilities on outdoor guest seats, and operated a general restaurant business by cooking and selling the chickens and licks to customers, and selling alcoholic beverages.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement concerning C in a protocol concerning the examination of suspect of the police;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to data about business activities of non-reported general restaurants and non-reported restaurants;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Article 97 subparagraph 1 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 37 (4) of the same Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. On October 6, 2016, the Defendant continued to engage in the reported general restaurant business even though he/she received a summary order of KRW 2 million on November 28, 2016 due to a violation of the Food Sanitation Act in relation to the instant restaurant on October 6, 2016, and a violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Designation and Management of Areas subject to Development Restriction on November 28, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant will be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor.

However, the defendant does not run a business again after the closure of the restaurant in this case, which is against the defendant's confession of the crime.

The execution of punishment shall be suspended in consideration of the fact that the punishment is in progress (the first trial date), etc.