A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 15, 2013, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 6 million on the charge of violating the Food Sanitation Act due to the business of danran tavern without permission at the Seoul Central District Court, and on April 3, 2013, the said summary order became final and conclusive.

On July 4, 2014, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the head of the competent Gu, carried out studio 8, a week, and a room room with approximately 153.05 square meters in the name of “D” on the 15th floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building, and operated studio 153.05 square meters in each room, such as setting up automatic video reflector and microphones, making customers sing in line with studio, cooking and selling musical and alcoholic beverages.

As a result, the Defendant was sentenced to a crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act due to the business of entertainment without permission and was engaged in the entertainment bar business without obtaining permission from the head of the competent Gu within five years after it became final and conclusive.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (a summary order, etc.);

1. The former part of Articles 94(2) and 94(1)3 and 37(1) of the Food Sanitation Act regarding criminal facts [a)] of the same Act includes the former part of the criminal record, which is a requirement for the application of Article 94(2) of the Food Sanitation Act, newly established on July 30, 2013 (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do10269, Nov. 29, 2012). (b) A prosecutor is punished by a fine against the Defendant on the ground of Article 94(3) of the Food Sanitation Act, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the food or food additives as well as the retail price determined based on the imposition of the fine under the above provision.

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. The Defendant was punished on two occasions on the grounds of a suspended sentence imposed under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds of a crime of violating the Food Sanitation Act, where he/she engaged in singran tavern business without permission at the same place from 2012 to 2013.

(2).