The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The screen or automatic reflector installed in a business establishment operated by the Defendant as to the fact is used only by the public performance-based individual equipment installed by the exclusive performance-based public performance-based.

Therefore, it is possible for customers to use the above reflective cycle.

In light of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts 1) Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act [Attachment 14] of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes

(b) At the places of business of a resting restaurant, a general restaurant, a general restaurant, or a confection, a video system for captioning or an automatic reflector that enables customers to use shall not be installed.

Provided, That this shall not apply where it is conducted in the general restaurant holding annual conference as a family funeral, such as a locking, painting, etc.

(f) No special lighting facility, such as stage equipment, sound and reflecting facilities, space lighting facilities, shall be installed in the guest rooms of the general restaurant.

2) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the screen screen equipment and automatic reflector installed in a general restaurant operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “public performance equipment of this case”) constitute facilities available to customers.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

① In light of the language and text of the facts charged in this case and relevant statutes, the Defendant’s violation of the statute by which the facts charged in this case are indicated.